BX  9193  .B7  B74  1893 
Briggs,  Charles  A.  1841- 

1913. 
The  defence  of  Professor 


THE    DEFENCE 


^^K^X  UF  mill 

>  APR  19  19i 


PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 

BEFORE  THE 

GENERAL   ASSEMBLY 


THE  WHOLE  CASE  AGAINST  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

embraces  the  follozving : 

1.  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE.      An  Inaugural 

Address,  January  30,  iSgi.  Fourth  edition.  Cr.  8vo, 
paper,  net, ^^  <=^* 

2.  THE  CASE  AGAINST    PROFESSOR  BRIGGS— Part  I.     In- 

cluding the  Arguments  of  Professor  Briggs  and  the 
Official  Papers  before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in 
1891,  and  the  General  Assembly  in  1893.  Cr.  8vo, 
paper,  net, 5°  '^^*- 

3.  THE  BIBLE,  THE     CHURCH,  AND    THE    REASON.      Lec- 

tures ill  exposition  of  the  Inaugural  in  1892.  Second 
edition.     Cr.  8vo, %\m. 

4.  THE  CASE   AGAINST  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS -Part  II.     In- 

cluding the  Legal  Arguments  of  Professor  Briggs  and  the 
Official  Papers  before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
1892-1893.     Cr.  8vo,  paper,  net,    ....     50  cts. 

5.  THE  DEFENCE  OF    PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  before  the  Pres- 

bytery of  New  York,  1892.     Cr.  8vo,  paper,  net,      50  ct$. 

6.  THE  HIGHER     CRITICISM    OF    THE    HEXATEUCH.      An 

additional  part  of  the  Defence  of  Professor  Briggt  before 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  189a.     Cr.  8vo,        .    $175. 

7.  THE     CASE     AGAINST     PROFESSOR    BRIGGS-Part    III. 

The  Defence  of  Professor  Briggs  and  the  Official  Papers 
before  the  General  Assembly  of  1893.  Cr.  8vo,  paper, 
net 75  cts. 


THE    DEFENCE 

OF 

PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 

BEFORE    THE 

GENERAL    ASSEMBLY 


THE   CASE   AGAINST 
PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 

PART    III. 


I.  The  Appeal  of  the  so-called  Prosecuting  Committee  to  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,   January  i8,  1893. 

II.  The  Argument  of  Professor  Briggs  before  the  General 
Assembly  against  Entertaining  the  Appeal,  May  24  and  25, 
1893. 

III.  The  Entertainment  of  the  Appeal,  May  26,  1893. 

IV.  The   Argument    of    Professor    Briggs    before    the   General 

Assembly  against  Sustaining  the  Appeal,  May  29  and  30,  1893. 

V.  The  Action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  Sustaining  the 
Appeal,  May  31,  1893,  and  the  Final  Judgment  of  the 
General  Assembly,  June  i,  1893. 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1893 


Copyright,  1893,  by 
CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS. 


niEes  or 

■DWARD  O.  JENKINS'   (ON, 
NEW  TORK. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

I.  The  Appeal  of  the  so-called  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee TO  THE  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
OF  America,  January  i8.  1893 1 

II.  The  Argument  of  Professor  Briggs  before  the 
General  Assembly  against  Entertaining  the 
Appeal,  May  24  and  25,  1893 35 

III.  The    Entertainment   of  the    Appeal,   May   26, 

1893 127 

IV.  The  Argument  of  Professor  Briggs  before  the 

General    Assembly    against    Sustaining   the 
Appeal,  May  29  and  30,  1893 138 

V.  The  Action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  Sus- 
taining THE  Appeal.  May  31,  1893,  and  the 
Final  Judgment  of  the  General  Assembly, 
June  i,  1893 304 


I. 

THE  APPEAL  TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

New  York,  January  i8th,  1 893. 

To  the  Venerable  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  tlte  United  States  of  America,  Greeting  : 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  in  the  case  of  the  said  Presbyterian  Church 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  presents  the 
following  Appeal  from  the  final  judgment  in  this  case, 
rendered  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on  the  ninth 
day  of  January,  1893,  with  the  grounds  therefor,  and  the 
specifications  of  the  errors  alleged.  Believing  that  the 
trial  of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  is  one  of  the  most  important 
in  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  by  reason  of 
the  dangerous  errors  alleged  to  be  contained  in  the  Ad- 
dress of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  at  his  inauguration  as  Pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  Theology  in  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, delivered  on  the  20th  day  of  January,  1891,  upon 
which  Inaugural  Address  charges  and  specifications  were 
tabled,  and  prosecution,  in  compliance  with  Sections  10 
and  1 1  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  was  initiated  by  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America ;  and  be- 
lieving that  the  distinct  and  definite  condemnation  of 


2  THE  APPEAL 

those  alleged  errors,  by  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the 
said  Presbyterian  Church,  is  necessary  in  order  to  pre- 
vent their  spread  and  influence  in  the  denomination ; 
and,  while  having  the  highest  respect  for  the  Synod  of 
New  York,  believing  that  a  special  responsibility  rests 
upon  the  General  Assembly,  which  is  charged  with  the 
duty  of  deciding  in  all  controversies  respecting  doctrine  ; 
of  reproving,  warning  or  bearing  testimony  against  error 
in  doctrine  in  any  Church,  Presbytery,  or  Synod,  and  in 
cases  that  affect  or  concern  the  promotion  of  truth  and 
holiness  through  all  the  Churches  under  its  care,  as  set 
forth  in  Chapter  XIL,  Sections  IV.  and  V.,  of  the  Form  of 
Government ;  and  in  view  of  the  desirableness  of  the 
speediest  settlement  of  this  most  important  case,  do 
hereby  appeal  to  and  request  your  Venerable  Body  to 
enter  immediately  upon  the  consideration  and  judicial 
investigation  of  the  appeal  hereby  presented,  to  issue 
the  case,  and  to  finally  determine  the  important  ques- 
tions involved,  so  as  to  secure  the  purity  and  the  peace 
of  the  Church  at  the  earliest  possible  day. 

In  the  further  prosecution  of  the  case  on  the  part  of 
the  said  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Appellant,  represented 
by  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee,  respectfully  sets 
forth : 

That  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  April,  A.D.  1891,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  appointed  a  Committee  to  con- 
sider the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  in  its  relation  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
that  on  May  eleventh,  A.D.  1891,  the  said  Committee  pre- 
sented to  said  Presbytery  a  report  which  was  accepted, 
and  its  recommendation,  "  that  the  Presbytery  enter  at 
once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the  case,"  was 
adopted  by  the  said  Presbytery,  and  thereupon  it  was 
"  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  arrange 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  3 

and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in 
the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs";  and  the  Rev.  G.  W.  F.  Birch, 
D.D.,  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.D.,  Rev.  Robert  F. 
Sample,  D.D.,  and  Ruling  Elders  John  J.  Stevenson  and 
John  J.  McCook,  were  appointed  such  Committee  in 
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  Section  1 1  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline. 

That  after  the  initiation  of  the  prosecution  by  the 
said  Judicatory,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  above 
recited,  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  entered  upon 
its  duties. 

That  as  said  prosecution  was  initiated  by  a  Judicatory, 
and  not  by  individual  prosecutors,  in  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  Section  lo  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
became  the  prosecutor,  and  an  original  party  in  the  case, 
and  was  represented  by  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee, 
which  said  Committee,  under  Section  1 1  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  conducting  the 
prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  Judicatory, 
until  the  final  issue  be  reached. 

That  at  the  meeting  of  said  Presbytery,  held  on  the 
fifth  day  of  October,  a.D.  1891,  the  said  Prosecuting 
Committee  presented  charges  and  specifications  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  which 
were  read  in  the  presence  of  the  Judicatory,  and  were 
then  served  by  the  Moderator  upon  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  together  with  a  citation,  citing  him  to 
appear  and  plead  to  the  said  charges  and  specifications 
at  a  meeting  of  the  said  Presbytery,  to  be  held  on  No- 
vember fourth,  A.D.  1891. 

That  after  said  charges  and  specifications  had  been 
presented  to  the  said  Presbytery  and  had  been  read,  the 


4  THE  APPEAL 

Presbytery  entertained  a  motion  made  by  the  Rev. 
George  Alexander,. D.D.,  to  arrest  the  judicial  proceed- 
ings and  to  discharge  the  Prosecuting  Committee  from 
further  consideration  of  the  case,  as  follows : 

*'  Whereas,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 
in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  an 
inaugural  address  delivered  January  20th,  1891,  appointed 
a  Committee  to  formulate  charges  against  the  author  of 
that  address,  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and  whereas, 
since  that  action  was  taken,  the  accused  has  supple- 
mented those  utterances  by  responding  to  certain  cate- 
gorical questions.     *     *     * 

"  Therefore,  Resolved,  that  Presbytery,  without  pro- 
nouncing on  the  sufficiency  of  these  later  declarations  to 
cover  all  the  points  concerning  which  the  accused  has 
been  called  in  question,  with  hearty  appreciation  of  the 
faithful  labors  of  the  Committee,  deems  it  expedient  to 
arrest  the  judicial  proceedings  at  this  point,  and  hereby 
discharges  the  Committee  from  further  consideration  of 
the  case." 

On  the  aforesaid  motion  to  dismiss  the  case,  as  ex- 
pressed specifically  in  the  words  "  to  arrest  the  judicial 
proceedings"  and  "hereby  discharges  the  Committee 
from  further  consideration  of  the  case,"  the  Presbytery 
by  a  yea  and  nay  vote  refused  to  adopt  the  above  reso- 
lution and  to  dismiss  the  case. 

That  on  the  said  fifth  day  of  October,  A.D,  1891,  the 
said  Presbytery  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  fourth  day  of 
November,  A.D.  1891,  the  day  upon  which  the  said  cita- 
tion was  made  returnable,  and  that  at  said  meeting  on 
the  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1891,  the  said  Presby- 
tery was  charged  as  a  Judicatory  in  accordance  with 
Rule  XL.  of  General  Rules  for  Judicatories,  and  there- 
upon the  said  Presbytery  proceeded  in  the  case  of  the 


TO  THE   GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  5 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and  the  said 
Dr.  Briggs  then  presented  a  paper  purporting  to  be  ob- 
jections to  the  sufficiency  of  the  said  charges  and  speci- 
fications in  form  and  legal  effect ;  that  said  paper  was 
largely  an  answer  to  said  charges  or  an  argument  upon 
the  merits  of  the  case,  and  was  denominated  by  the  said 
Dr.  Briggs  himself,  a  "  Response  to  the  Charges  and 
Specifications  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
by  Prof.  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.,"  and  that  the 
said  Presbytery  thereupon  permitted  members  of  the 
said  Presbytery  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  main  ques- 
tion on  behalf  of  the  accused  before  and  without  per- 
mitting the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  be  heard  on  the 
merits  of  the  case. 

That  a  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  was  raised,  and  the  Moderator  decided  that 
the  Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecution 
in  view  of  the  previous  action  of  the  Presbytery,  and  was 
in  the  house  as  an  original  party  under  the  provisions  of 
Section  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  That  an  appeal 
was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  the  ques- 
tion was  divided,  and  the  Moderator  was  sustained  in  the 
point,  that  the  Committee  was  in  the  house  as  a  properly 
appointed  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  also  sustained 
in  the  point  that  the  Committee,  as  representing  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
was  an  original  party  in  the  case. 

That  on  said  November  fourth,  A.D.  1891,  the  said 
Presbytery,  after  fully  hearing  Dr.  Briggs'  "  Response  to 
the  Charges  and  Specifications,"  and  without  permitting 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  be  heard  on  the  merits  of 
the  case,  upon  the  motion  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke, 
D.D.,  made  and  entered  on  its  records  its  decision  and 


g  THE  APPEAL 

final  judgment  dismissing  the  said  case  in  the  following 
words,  to  wit : 

"  Resolved,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency  of 
the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect ; 
and  without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  In- 
augural Address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the 
peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  decla- 
rations made  by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and 
of  his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his 
words,  deems  it  best  to  dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does 
so  dismiss  it." 

From  the  aforesaid  action  of  the  said  Presbytery  of 
New  York  on  the  said  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1 891, 
in  dismissing  the  case,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  took 
an  appeal  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  Presby- 
terian Church  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  Sections  94  to  102,  inclusive, 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 

The  said  Appeal  was  made  upon  six  different  grounds, 
supported  by  twenty-five  specifications  of  error,  and  to- 
gether with  the  written  notice  of  Appeal  required  by- 
Section  96  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  was  given  to  the 
Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  lodged 
with  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  General  Assembly,  within 
the  time  required  by  Sections  96  and  97  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline. 

The  Appeal,  the  Record  and  other  documents  in  the 
case  were  referred  to  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1892  at  Portland,  Oregon,  and  the 
following  action  was  had  thereon  : 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  7 

"The  Judicial  Committee  presented  its  report  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  of  A.  vs. 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  which  was  accepted,  as 
follows : 

The  Judicial  Committee  respectfully  reports  that  it 
has  carefully  considered  the  documents  submitted  to  it 
in  this  case,  and  adopted  the  following  resolutions : 

1.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  the  Appeal 
taken  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  an  original  party  represented  by  the  "  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution,"  appointed  under  Section  ii  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  has  been  taken  from  the  final 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case  ;  and 
that  the  said  Committee  had  the  right  to  take  this  Ap- 
peal representing  the  said  original  party. 

2.  That  it  finds  that  the  notice  of  the  Appeal  has 
been  given,  and  that  the  Appeal,  Specifications  of  Error, 
and  Record  have  been  filed  in  accordance  with  Sections 
96  and  97  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  Appeal  is 
in  order. 

3.  That,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee,  the  Ap- 
peal should  be  entertained,  and  a  time  set  apart  for  the 
hearing  of  the  case. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  Committee  re- 
ports that  the  Appeal  is  in  order,  and  that  the  General 
Assembly  should  proceed,  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  99  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  by 
causing  the  judgment  appealed  from,  the  notice  of  Ap- 
peal, the  Appeal  and  the  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged,  to  be  read ;  then  to  hear  the  appellant  by  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution ;  then  the  defendant  in  per- 
son, or  by  his  counsel ;  then  the  appellant  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  in  reply,  upon  the  question, 
"  Whether  the  Appeal  shall  be  entertained  ?  "  (Minutes 
of  General  Assembly,  1892,  page  90.) 


8  THE  APPEAL 

The  General  Assembly  was  then  constituted  and 
charged,  in  accordance  with  Rule  XL.  of  the  General 
Rules  for  Judicatories,  and  during  its  sessions,  on  the 
25th  and  26th  days  of  May,  1892,  heard  the  Arguments 
of  the  Appellant  and  the  Appellee  upon  the  question 
whether  the  Appeal  should  or  should  not  be  entertained, 
the  Assembly  adopted  the  report  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee and  the  Appeal  was  entertained.  (Minutes  of 
General  Assembly,  1892,  pp.  118  and  119.) 

Against  this  action  of  the  Assembly,  "  in  entertaining 
the  Appeal  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  *  *  * 
and  so  giving  the  Committee  which  preferred  the 
Charges  against  Dr.  Briggs,  standing  before  the  Assem- 
bly and  right  of  Appeal  as  an  original  party,"  a  protest 
was  presented  by  the  Rev.  S.  J.  McPherson,  D.D.,  and 
others,  which  protest  was  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly  without  answer.  (Minutes  of 
General  Assembly,  1B92,  pp.  153,205.) 

The  Appeal,  upon  its  merits,  was  then  fully  argued 
by  the  Appellant  and  the  Appellee  before  the  General 
Assembly,  on  May  28th,  1892  (Minutes  of  General  As- 
sembly, 1892,  p.  140),  and  the  provisions  of  Section  99 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline  having  been  fully  complied 
with,  each  of  the  twenty-five  specifications  of  error  was 
sustained.  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  upon  the 
question,  "Shall  the  Appeal  be  sustained ?"  and  431 
Commissioners  voted  to  sustain  the  Appeal  and  87  voted 
not  to  sustain.  (Minutes  of  General  Assembly,  1892, 
p.  T41.) 

On  May  30th,  1892,  the  Committee  appointed  to  draft 
a  form  of  Judgment  to  be  entered  in  the  said  case  sub- 
mitted its  report  and  recommended  the  form  of  decree 
or  order,  which  was  adopted,  (Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly,  1892,  p.  152)  and  is  as  follows: 


TO   THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  9 


*•  The    Presbyterian    Church  1 

IN   THE 

United    States    of   America 

vs. 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 


Appeal  from  the 
judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of 
New  York,  dis- 
missing the  case. 


"  The  General  Assembly  having,  on  the  28th  day  of 
May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specifications  in 
this  case, 

"  It  is  now,  May  30,  1892,  ordered,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1 891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reversed.  And 
the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  the  said  Presbytery  to 
proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of 
the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect, 
and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  amend 
the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing  the  general 
nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  it 
be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case  may  be  brought 
to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  as 
may  be  practicable. 

"  And  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of 
the  General  Assembly  return  the  record,  and  certify 
the  proceedings  had  thereon,  with  the  necessary  papers 
relating  thereto,  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York." 

This  mandate  of  the  General  Assembly  was  received 
by  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  and 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery  at  its  meeting  held  on  the 
13th  day  of  June,  1892,  when  the  Presbytery 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  Presbytery,  the 
issue  of  the  case  is  impracticable  during  the  Summer, 


10 


THE  APPEAL 


but  will  receive  the  attention  of  Presbytery  on  its  reas- 
sembling in  the  Fall." 

On  the  9th  day  of  November,  1892,  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  met,  was  constituted  and  charged,  in  accord- 
ance with  Rule  XL.  of  the  General  Rules  for  Judica- 
tories. During  the  first  day's  session  of  the  said  Judi- 
catory, in  compliance  with  the  said  mandate  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  the  provisions  of  Section  22  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  said  Judicatory  permitted 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  amend  the  Charges  and 
Specifications  theretofore  submitted  in  this  case,  and 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  thereupon  submitted  amend- 
ed Charges  and  Specifications.  In  the  furtherance  of 
justice,  and  with  an  earnest  desire  to  fairly  and  fully 
meet  and  conform  to  the  suggestions  and  objections 
raised  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  response  to  the  original  Charges 
and  Specifications,  so  far  as  such  objections  were  valid 
or  well  taken,  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  without  de- 
parting from  or  changing  the  general  nature  of  the  orig- 
inal Charges,  made  such  amendments  as  appeared  to 
them  to  be  necessary  to  secure  clearness  and  certainty 
as  to  what  was  charged ;  also  to  prevent  the  Charges 
from  covering  more  than  one  offence  and  to  make  the 
Specifications,  and  the  proofs  cited  in  support  thereof, 
germane  and  pertinent  to  the  Charges  they  were  in- 
tended to  sustain.  The  sessions  of  said  Judicatory 
were  continued  with  certain  interruptions  for  a  number 
of  days,  during  which  certain  proceedings  were  taken  as 
recorded  in  the  minutes  of  said  Judicatory,  which  min- 
utes are  hereby  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the  record  of  the 
proceedings  in  this  case,  which  culminated  in  the  de- 
cision and  final  J  udgment  from  which  this  Appeal  is  taken. 
On  the  9th  day  of  January,  1893,  a  committee  con- 
sisting of  the  Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.D.,  the  Rev. 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  H 

Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  and  Elder  Robert  Jaffray,  ap- 
pointed to  bring  in  a  minute  to  express  the  action  of 
the  said  Judicatory,  made  its  report,  which  was  adopted 
by  the  Judicatory,  and  the  said  Presbytery,  sitting  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  made  and  entered  its  decision  and  final 
judgment  in  this  case,  in  the  following  words,  to  wit : 

"The  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Reverend  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  having  been  dismissed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  on  November  4,  1891,  was  remanded  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  1892  to  the  same  Presbytery, 
with  instructions  that  '  it  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried 
on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  possible.'  " 

*'In  obedience  to  this  mandate  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  has  tried  the  case.  It  has  listened  to  the 
evidence  and  argument  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion, acting  in  fidelity  to  the  duty  committed  to  them. 
It  has  heard  the  defense  and  evidence  of  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  presented  in  accordance  with  the 
rights  secured  to  every  minister  of  the  church. 

"  The  Presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established 
principles  of  our  polity,  '  that  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication ';  that 
'  in  the  interpretation  of  ambiguous  expressions  candor 
requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by  putting 
upon  his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the  less 
favorable  construction,'  and  *  there  are  truths  and  forms 
with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  character  may  differ.' 

"  Giving  due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  explana- 
tion of  the  language  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address, 
accepting  his  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpreta- 
tion which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and 
illustrations,  crediting  his  afifirmations  of  loyalty  to  the 
Standards  of  the  church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the  Presby- 


12 


THE  APPEAL 


tery  does  not  find  that  he  has  transgressed  the  limits  of 
liberty  allowed  under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship 
and  opinion. 

"  Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  criti- 
cal or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress or  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed 
and  illustrated,  the  Presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences 
alleged  against  him,  the  several  charges  and  specifica- 
tions accepted  for  probation  having  been  '  not  sustained ' 
by  the  following  vote  : 


f  I  Specification 
[Charge  |^;;^ 
f  I  Specification 

^Charge   j^;;; 

{specification , . 
Charge    |  ?.".'.' 

(  Specification.. 

(  Specification . . 
V-'^  Charge    ]^;;; 

yi  ^  Specification. . 
■  /  Charge 


SUSTAINED. 


41 
42 
42 
42 

39 
39 
39 
39 

44 
44 
42 
44 

39 
39 
39 

35 
35 
35 

41 

4i 


W 


17 
17 
17 
17 

16 
16 
16 
16 

17 
17 
17 
17 

15 
15 
15 

H 

14 
14 

16 
16 


58 
59 
59 
59 

55 
55 
55 
55 

61 
61 

59 
61 

54 
54 
54 

49 
49 
49 

57 

57 


NOT 
SUSTAINED. 


55 
54 
54 
54 

56 

56 

56 

'56 

52 
52 
54 
52 

55 
55 
55 

57 
57 
57 

55 
55 


W 


5  '  70 

5  i  69 

5  '  69 

5  .  69 


72 
72 
72 
72 


5  I  67 
5  '  67 


15 

IS 

69 
67 

17 

72 

17 

72 

17 

72 

16 

73 

16 

7^ 

16 

73 

14 

69 

14 

69 

TO  THE  GENERAL   ASSEMBLY  I3 

"  Accordingly,  the  Presbytery,  making  full  recognition 
of  the  ability,  sincerity  and  patience  with  which  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  have  performed  the  onerous 
duty  assigned  them,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its  con- 
stitutional power,  relieve  said  Committee  from  further 
responsibility  in  connection  with  this  case.  In  so  do- 
ing, the  Presbytery  is  not  undertaking  to  decide  how  far 
that  Committee  is  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  body 
appointing  it,  but  intends  by  this  action  to  express  an 
earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues  involved  in  this 
case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm 
investigation  and  fraternal  discussion  than  by  judicial 
arraignment  and  process. 

"  In  view  of  the  present  disquietude  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  and  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  all  Chris- 
tians to  walk  in  charity  and  to  have  tender  concern  for 
the  consciences  of  their  brethren,  the  Presbytery  earn- 
estly counsels  its  members  to  avoid  on  the  one  hand 
hasty  or  over-confident  statement  of  private  opinion  on 
points  concerning  which  profound  and  reverent  students 
of  God's  word  are  not  yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
suspicions  and  charges  of  false  teaching  which  are  not 
clearly  capable  of  proof. 

"  Moreover,  the  Presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  sub- 
ject to  its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things 
in  which  we  agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things 
in  which  we  differ;  and,  turning  from  the  paths  of  con- 
troversy, to  devote  their  energies  to  the  great  and  urgent 
work  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  Body  of  Christ." 

From  the  aforesaid  action,  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment of  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York,  sitting  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  taken  on  the  ninth  day  of  January, 
1893,  being  the  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery  in 


14  THE  APPEAL 

the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in 
behalf  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  we,  the  undersigned,  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee in  the  said  case,  do  hereby  appeal  to  your  Vener- 
able Body,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  Sections  94  to  102,  inclusive,  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline, 

Under  the  provisions  of  Section  IV.  of  Chapter  XI.  of 
the  Form  of  Government  of  said  Presbyterian  Church, 
the  decision  of  a  Synod  on  an  Appeal  which  affects  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  is  not  final. 

Section  V.  of  Chapter  Xll.  of  the  said  Form  of  Govern- 
ment devolves  upon  the  General  Assembly  "  the  power 
of  deciding  in  all  controversies  respecting  doctrine  and 
discipline;  of  reproving,  warning,  or  bearing  testimony 
against  error  in  doctrine  *  *  *  in  any  church,  presby- 
tery, or  synod." 

Section  IV.  of  the  same  Chapter  provides  that  "The 
General'  Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue  all  Appeals 
*  *  *  that  affect  the  doctrine  or  constitution  of  the 
Church,  which  may  be  regularly  brought  before  them 
from  the  inferior  judicatories." 

Under  these  Sections  of  the  Form  of  Government  and 
Section  102  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  Appeal  from 
the  former  Judgment  dismissing  this  case  was  taken  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee,  in  behalf  of  the  said  Pres- 
byterian Church,  directly  from  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  to  the  General  Assembly.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
the  Church,  after  full  discussion,  assumed  jurisdiction  of 
the  case,  entertained  the  Appeal,  and,  after  further  full 
argument,  sustained  the  same. 

The  General  Assembly,  in  reversing  the  former  Judg- 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  I5 

merit  of  the  Presbytery,  directed  that  the  case  should  be 
tried  upon  its  merits  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and 
from  the  result  of  that  trial  it  is  proper  that  the  Appeal 
should  be  made  directly  to  the  higher  Judicatory,  which 
has  already  entertained  jurisdiction  of  the  case. 

The  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  as  represent- 
ing the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  as  an  original  party,  under  Sections  10  and  1 1 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  having  been  sustained  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1892,  the  Committee  is  charged 
with  conducting  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  what- 
ever Judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  cannot  accept  the  decision 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  final,  and  not  take  an 
appeal  therefrom,  inasmuch  as  it  would  thereby  assume 
the  responsibility  of  acting  for  the  entire  Church  and 
would  surrender  the  Church's  rights  and  the  only  oppor- 
tunit}^  of  securing  a  final  determination,  by  the  General 
Assembly,  of  the  questions  at  issue  which  involve  most 
important  and  fundamental  doctrines. 

As  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  96,  provides  that 
written  Notice  of  Appeal,  with  the  specifications  of  the 
errors  alleged,  shall  be  given  within  ten  days  after  the 
Judgment  has  been  rendered,  the  Prosecuting  Commit- 
tee must  act  promptly,  and  without  being  able  to  obtain 
in  advance  the  instruction  or  wishes  of  the  only  body 
representing  the  entire  Church,  namely,  the  General 
Assembly. 

If  the  action  of  the  Committee  in  taking  this  Appeal 
does  not  commend  itself  to  the  court  of  last  resort  it 
need  not  be  entertained,  and  the  Appeal  can  be  dismissed 
v/ithout  prejudice  to  any  interest. 

Under  ordinary  conditions  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
would  have  taken  this  Appeal  to  the  Synod  of  New 


IQ  THE   APPEAL 

York,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  be  best  to  do  so  in  this 
exceptional  case  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  To  secure  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church  it  is 
essential  that  a  final  determination  of  the  fundamental 
and  important  questions  involved  should  be  reached  by 
Ihe  Court  of  last  resort  at  the  earliest  practicable  date. 

2.  As  this  case  involves  doctrine,  it  must  be  finally  de- 
termined by  the  General  Assembly.  The  delay  in  reach- 
ing an  ultimate  decision  through  an  appeal  by  way  of 
the  Synod  could  not  be  less  than  ^year,  during  which 
the  character  of  instruction  given  our  candidates  for  the 
gospel  ministry  might  be  unfavorably  affected.  By  se- 
curing the  speedy  decision  of  the  Court  of  last  resort  in 
this  case,  neither  the  rights  nor  the  interests  of  any  indi- 
vidual would  suffer. 

3.  If  the  Appeal  should  go  to  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  be  passed  upon  by  that  Judicatory,  when  the  case 
reaches  the  General  Assembly  by  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  the  Synod,  all  of  the  Presbyteries  constituting 
that  Synod  would  be  excluded  from  representation  in 
the  final  determination  of  these  important  questions. 
If  the  Appeal  goes  directly  to  the  Assembly,  the  Com- 
missioners from  only  one  Presbytery  in  the  entire  Church 
would  be  excluded  from  sitting,  deliberating 'and  voting 
in  the  final  decision.  In  the  Synod  of  New  York  there 
are  thirty-two  Presbyteries,  nearly  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the 
whole  number  of  Presbyteries  in  the  Church.  Inasmuch 
as  all  these  Presbyteries,  excepting  one,  would  be  fully 
represented  and  heard  in  the  General  Assembly,  and  the 
General  Assembly  alone  can  give  a  final  decision,  we  be- 
lieve the  time  and  the  interests  of  the  Synod  of  New- 
York  will  be  best  conserved  if  the  Assembly  should  en- 
tertain the  Appeal  according  to  the  Committee's  request. 
This  important  consideration  of  having  these  questions 


TO   THE  GENERAL   ASSEMBLY  I'J 

finally  determined  by  the  representatives  of  substantially 
the  entire  Church,  apart  from  the  other  reasons  above 
mentioned,  would  seem  to  require,  in  the  interest  of 
fairness  and  justice  to  all  concerned,  that  the  Prosecut- 
ing Committee  should  take  an  Appeal  directly  to  the 
General  Assembly,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  should 
entertain  said  Appeal. 

The  grounds  of  this  Appeal  are  as  follows  : 

First  Ground  of  Appeal. 

irregularity  in  the  proceedings  of  said  pres- 
bytery of  new  york. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICA  riON  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  in  consideration  of  objections  offered  by 
the  accused  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  sitting  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  required  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  amend  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  sub- 
mitted to  said  Presbytery  on  the  9th  day  of  November, 
1892,  by  striking  out  Charge  IV.,  said  Charge  IV.  being 
in  substance  an  essential  part  of  the  original  Charges 
and  Specifications  in  the  case  sent  down  by  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  the  said  Presbytery,  with  instructions 
that  the  said  case  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the 
merits  thereof. 

SPECIFICA  TION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  in  consideration  of  objections  offered  by 
the  accused  the  said  Presbytery  required  the  said  Prose- 
cuting Committee  to  amend  the  Amended  Charges  and 
Specifications  by  striking  out  Charge  VII.,  said  Charge 
VII.  being  in  substance  an  essential  part  of  the  original 
Charges  and  Specifications  in  the  case  sent  down  by  the 


18 


THE   APPEAL 


last  General  Assembly  to  the  said  Presbytery,  with  in- 
structions that  the  said  case  be  brought  to  issue  and 
tried  on  the  merits  thereof. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  THIRD. 
In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  before  proceeding 
to  trial,  directed  the  transference  of  the  proofs  cited  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  from  the  -Scriptures,  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms,  to  sustain  the 
several  Specifications,  from  the  Specifications  to  the 
Charges,  by  the  following  action,  to  wit :  "  Without 
sustaining  the  general  objection  to  the  relevancy  of  the 
proofs  from  the  Scriptures,  Catechisms  and  Confession, 
the  Presbytery  directs  the  transference  of  these  proofs 
from  the  Specifications  to  the  Charges." 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  Moderator  of  the  Presbytery,  the 
Rev.  John  C.  Bliss,  D.D.,  without  submitting  the  ques- 
tion to  the  Judicatory,  ruled  that  the  Rev.  Joseph  J. 
Lampe,  D.D.,  speaking  as  a  member  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  introduced  new  matter  in  his  argument  in 
reply  to  the  argument  of  the  accused,  and  without  speci- 
fying the  alleged  new  matter,  the  Presbytery,  after  the 
close  of  the  argument  of  the  said  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe, 
D.D.,  on  behalf  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  took  the 
following  action,  to  wit : 

"■  Resolved,  T^x^X  the  Presbytery  now  give  the  defend- 
ant an  opportunity  to  reply." 

SPECIFICA  TION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  by  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  referred 
to  in  Specification  Fourth,  the  said  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee were  refused  the  opportunity  to  close  the  case, 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  19 

contrary  to  the  practice  and  precedents  in  such  cases  in 
the  Judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  of  America. 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH, 
In  this,  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  said 
Dr^Bxiggs  declined  to  be  sworn  as  a  witness  when  called 
upon,  the  said  Presbytery  accepted  statements  or  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  by  the  said  accused,  or 
disclaimers  on  the  part  of  the  said  accused,  and  gave  to 
said  statements,  explanations  or  disclaimers  in  the  final 
judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery,  the  force  of  such  sworn 
approbated  and  subscribed  testimony,  as  is  described  or 
referred  to  in  Sections  6i  and  62  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  there  was  placed  upon  or  in  the  Official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Judicatory,  of  December  5th,  1892,  as  furnished  to  the 
parties  by  the  Stenographer,  beginning  at  the  last  line  on 
page  448  (erased  page  No.  461)  to  a  point  below  the 
middle  of  page  468  (erased  page  No.  481),  about  twenty 
pages,  which  said  twenty  pages  contain  words  and 
matter  which  were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, and,  as  is  stated  by  the  Stenographer,  were  intro- 
duced into  the  Stenographic  Report  upon  the  request  or 
suggestion  of  Prof.  Briggs,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Moderator,  and  after  it  had  been  announced  to  the  Judi- 
catory that  both  of  the  parties  had  fully  presented  their 
evidence,  and  after  the  argument  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  had  been  begun. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  EIGHTH. 

In  this,  that  there  was  placed  upon  or  in  the  Official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Judi- 


20  THE  APPEAL 

catory,  beginning  at  page  468  of  said  Official  Steno- 
graphic Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
held  on  Monday,  December  5th,  1892,  fifteen  or  more 
additional  printed  sheets,  which  said  fifteen  or  more  ad- 
ditional printed  sheets  contain  words  and  matter  which 
were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and 
were  introduced  by  the  Stenographer  into  the  Official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings,  as  said  Steno- 
graphic Report  of  December  6,  1892,  shows,  (page  578), 
upon  the  request  or  suggestion  of  Prof.  Briggs  and  by 
direction  of  the  Moderator,  and  after  it  had  been  an- 
nounced to  the  Judicatory  that  both  of  the  parties  had 
fully  presented  their  evidence,  and  after  the  argument 
of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  been  begun. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  NINTH. 

In  this,  that  the  request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
that  such  part  of  the  Stenographic  Report  described  and 
referred  to  in  Specifications  Seventh  and  Eighth  as 
twenty  pages  and  fifteen  or  more  additional  printed 
sheets,  respectively,  should  be  stricken  out  and  that  the 
accused  should  not  be  permitted  to  refer  to  or  use  any 
portion  of  such  matter,  or  the  books  or  documents 
therein  referred  to,  as  evidence  upon  the  trial,  was  re- 
fused by  the  said  Judicatory,  and  in  this,  that  the  record 
of  said  request  was  stricken  from  the  Minutes  of  the  said 
Presbytery.  (See  Records  of  the  New  York  Presbytery, 
Vol.  14,  pp.  395,  396.) 

SPECIFICATION  TENTH. 

In  this,  that  after  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  ob- 
jected  to  the  insertion  into  the  Official  Stenographer's 
Report  of  certain  words  and  matter,  said  matter  being 
upon  about  twenty  pages  of  the   Stenographer's  notes, 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  21 

and  fifteen  or  more  printed  sheets  being  the  pages  and 
printed  sheets  referred  to  in  Specifications  Seventh  and 
Eighth,  which  said  words  and  matter  were  not  spoken 
on  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and  after  the  said  Prose- 
cuting Committee  had  requested  that  the  said  twenty 
pages  and  the  said  fifteen  or  more  printed  sheets  should 
be  stricken  out,  and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  refer  to  or  to  use  any  portion  of  such  matter 
or  the  books  or  documents  therein  referred  to,  as  evi- 
dence upon  the  trial,  and  in  this,  that  the  said  Presby- 
tery, while  retaining  as  a  part  of  the  Stenographer's  Re- 
port, the  said  twenty  pages  and  the  said  fifteen  or  more 
printed  sheets,  voted  to  strike  out  of  the  Minutes  the 
said  record  of  the  request  of  the  said  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee. 

SPEC! PICA  TION  ELEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  said 
Charges  and  Specifications,  the  said  Presbytery  refused 
to  permit  any  of  the  members  of  the  said  Judicatoiy  to 
vote,  to  "  Sustain  in  part,"  contrary  to  the  precedents 
and  practice  of  the  judicial  procedure  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

SPECIFICATION    TWELFTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  required  that  each 
item  in  Charges  I.,  II.,  III.,  V.,  and  VI.  should  be  voted 
upon  separately,  thereby  implying  and. proceeding  upon 
the  theory,  which  was  not  warranted  by  the  facts,  that 
each  of  said  Charges  contained  more  than  one  offence. 
(See  Records  of  the  New  York  Presbytery,  Vol.  14,  p. 
368.) 


22  the  appeal 

Second  Ground  of  Appeal. 

receiving  improper  testimony. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICA  TION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  said 
accused  declined  to  be  sworn  as  a  witness  when  called 
upon,  the  said  Presbytery  accepted  statements  or  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  by  the  said  accused  or 
disclaimers  on  the  part  of  the  said  accused  and  gave  to 
said  statements,  explanations  or  disclaimers,  in  the  final 
judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery,  the  force  of  such  sworn, 
approbated  and  subscribed  testimony  as  is  described  or 
referred  to  in  Sections  61  and  62  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline. 

SPECIFICA  TION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  Moderator,  at  the  request  of  the  said 
accused,  instructed  the  Stenographer,  as  appears  by  page 
578  of  the  Stenographer's  Report  of  the  proceedings  of 
December  6th,  1892,  to  insert,  beginning  at  the  last  line 
on  page  448  (erased  page  No.  461),  to  a  point  below  the 
middle  of  page  468  (erased  page  No.  481)  of  the  Ofificial 
Stenographer's  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Judi- 
catory at  its  session  on  Monday,  December  5th,  about 
twenty  pages  of  stenographic  notes,  and  also  fifteen  or 
more  additional  printed  sheets  beginning  at  page  468 
of  the  Official  Stenographic  Report,  the  statements  and 
matter  contained  in  the  said  twenty  pages  of  said  Stenog- 
rapher's notes,  and  in  the  said  fifteen  or  more  additional 
printed  sheets,  being  matter  or  statements  which  were 
not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and  which 
were  permitted  to  remain  as  a  part  of  the  Stenographer's 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 


23 


Official  Report  and  were  received  by  the  said  Judicatory 
as  competent  evidence. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  Presbytery  admitted  as  lawful  and 
competent  testimony  any  part  of  the  quotations  made 
by  the  accused,  in  so  far  as  they  were  writings  or 
extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  said  accused,  without 
his  having  iirst  taken  the  oath  or  afifirmation  required 
by  Section  6i  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Third  Ground  of  Appeal. 

declining  to  receive  important  testimony. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  instructed  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike  out  Amended  Charge 
IV.,  thereby  declining  to  permit  the  said  Committee  to 
prove  said  Charge  IV.  by  competent  evidence. 

SPECIFICATION   SECOND. 
In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  instructed  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike  out  Amended  Charge 
VII.,  thereby  declining  to  permit  the  said  Committee 
to  prove  said  Charge  VII.  by  competent  evidence. 

Fourth  Ground  of  Appeal, 
manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  conduct  of 

THE    CASE. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 
In  this,  that  several  members,  hereinafter  named,  of 
the  said  Presbytery,  sitting  in  a  judicial  capacity,  who 


24  THE  APPEAL 

afterwards  voted  not  to  sustain  each  and  every  one  of 
the  Specifications  and  Charges,  made  statements  upon 
the  f^oor  of  the  Presbytery,  respectively,  as  hereinafter 
set  forth,  to  wit: 

Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.D.,  said  : 

"  What  seems  to  me  strange,  Mr.  Moderator,  is  that  one  of  Dr. 
Shedd's  acknowledged  logical  faculty  should  be  so  blmd  to  the 
distinction  that  ought  to  be  made.  1  could  adopt  as  my  own 
every  word  of  that  which  he  quoted  from  Dr.  Briggs,  and  I  am 
not  a  Restorationist.  The  Lord  has  done  great  things  for  me 
whereof  I  am  glad,  and  I  confidently  believe  that  he  is  going  to 
do  a  great  deal  more  for  me  hereafter.  But  that  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  question  as  to  whether  Dr.  Briggs  holds  that  there 
is  redemption  in  the  world  to  come  for  those  who  die  in  sin. 
The  difficulty  is,  that  this  Charge  imputes  to  Dr.  Briggs  views 
which  he  distinctly  says  he  does  not  hold."  *  *  *  "  When 
Dr.  Briggs  intimated  a  suspicion  that  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee might  be  holding  back  deliberately  with  testimony  or 
evidence  in  order  to  crush  him  with  it  after  the  opportunity  for 
response  had  gone  by,  I  resented  that  suspicion,  and  if  it  had 
been  in  order  1  should  have  risen  in  my  place  and  asked  him  to 
withdraw  those  words  because  it  seemed  to  me  an  unworthy 
suspicion.  Now,  that  the  suspicion  seems  to  be  justified  by  the 
event,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  say.  I  am  puzzled  and  distressed. 
The  members  of  this  Prosecuting  Committee  are  my  personal 
friends ,  I  cannot  believe  that  there  is  one  of  them  that  would 
consciously  do  an  injustice.  1  won't  believe  it,  but  1  cannot 
shrink  from  the  fact  that  a  wrong  has  been  done  in  some  way,  • 
and  the  more  I  think  of  it  and  the  more  I  think  of  the  defend- 
ant, from  whom  I  differ  so  widely,  worn  out  and  weak  and  suf- 
fering from  this  terrific  strain,  required  now  to  meet  this  fresh 
assault — why,  the  more  every  drop  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood  in  me 
protests  against  it.  We  cannot  remedy  the  wrong.  All  that 
we  can  do  is  to  give  the  defendant,  if  he  desires  it  (1  hope  he 
will  not  desire  it),  an  opportunity  to  meet  this  fresh  evidence 
and  this  fresh  argument ;  giving  him  reasonable  time  to  prepare 
his  defense,  and,  if  need  be,  giving  the  prosecution  the  last 
word.     I  should  not  object  to  that  at  all.     But,  having  spent  so 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  25 

much  time,  we  cannot  afford  to  seem,  even,  to  do  an  injustice 
to  any  one." 

Rev.  Antonio  Arreghi  said  : 

"  An  engagement  made  long  before  this  Court,  and  made  out 
of  fidelity  to  my  work,  renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  attend  at 
the  sessions  of  this  Court  to-morrow  and  the  day  after.  I 
therefore  ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  House  to  excuse- me 
for  those  two  days.  It  seems  to  me  a  great  injustice  because  I 
have  an  engagement,  over  which  I  have  no  control  in  the  least, 
and  if  I  am  not  enrolled,  it  deprives  me  of  the  right  to  vote  on 
this  trial.  I  may  say  right  here  that  it  is  well  known  by  the 
Brethren  on  which  side  of  the  House  each  man  stands  on  this 
floor."     [Cries  of  No!  no!]. 

Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  D.D.,  said: 

"  I  wish  at  the  beginning  of  this  trial  we  might  have  one  vote 
that  could  be  unanimous.  We  are  all  anxious  to  hurry  on  this 
matter  as  much  as  possible.  I  believe  our  excellent  friends  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  would  be  very  glad  if  this  Presby- 
tery would  relieve  them  of  the  necessity  of  pressing  these  two 
portions  of  their  Charges.  Let  us  be  unanimous.  I  do  not 
think  Col.  McCook  would  be  at  all  sorry  to  have  these  two 
Charges  stricken  out.  There  are  enough  Charges  left  any  way 
to  sink  a  ship.  Let  us  go  to  trial  on  them  and,  if  possible,  unite 
in  this  first  disposal  of  these  two  Charges,  which  will  be  a  most 
happy  and  auspicious  omen  for  all  the  rest." 

Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  said : 

"  The  change  is  radical,  in  my  judgment,  between  this 
amended  Charge  IV.  and  what  was  in  the  former  Charges.  It 
gives  the  lie  direct.  That  is  the  plain  English  of  it  and  there  is 
no  getting  around  that  by  any  casuist.  Dr.  Briggs  has  told  this 
Presbytery  that  he  does  not  hold  such  views,  and  in  his  demur- 
rer he  has  reiterated  it.  Now,  to  bring  before  such  a  body  as 
this  a  Charge  to  try  a  man  upon,  assuming  that  it  is  doctrinal, 
when  it  is  really  moral — being  a  question  whether  he  lies  or  not 
— is  certainly  a  very  serious  and  a  very  radical  change.  *  ♦  * 
*  *  I  said  that  the  charge  does  give  him  the  lie  direct  and  I 
adhere  to  it.     I  did  not  say,  however,  that  the  Committee  called 


26  THE  APPEAL 

Dr.  Briggs  a  liar.  *  *  *  And  I  take  it  that  he  himself  is  to  be 
accepted  as  an  authority  as  to  what  he  meant  in  that  Inaugural 
Address  and  in  anything  else  that  he  has  said  or  published,  and 
what  has  seemed  to  me  extremely  unfair  and  ungenerous  on  the 
part  of  some  is  the  persistent  effort  to  read  into  his  language 
what  he  says  distinctly  was  not  in  his  mind  and  was  not  his 
intention.  A  man  must  be  his  own  interpreter,  and,  as  I  under- 
stand it.  Dr.  Briggs  is  before  this  body  saying  that  he  intended 
no  such  thing  as  is  charged  against  him.  When  a  man  says  that 
about  a  charge,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  utterly  out  of  character 
and  out  of  keeping  for  the  Presbytery  to  insist  upon  that 
Charge.  Accept  the  man's  disclaimer  and  denial  and  let  the 
Charge  be  withdrawn." 

Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  said : 

"  I  can  very  readily  specify  some  new  matter  that  has  been 
introduced.  It  is  quite  evident  that  new  matter  has  been  intro- 
duced [cries  of  'No!  no ! '  J.  Those  who  do  not  yet  see  it 
will  see  it  when  the  Court  comes  to  vote  upon  it.  So  it  is 
simply  a  matter  of  fairness  and  justice  that  we  should  allow  the 
defendant,  if  he  wishes  it,  to  reply.  It  would  be  an  unheard  of 
thing  in  any  civil  Court  that  a  prosecution  should  be  allowed  to 
traverse  new  ground,  and  that  the  accused  should  not  be 
allowed  to  be  heard  or  to  ofTer  evidence  in  rebuttal.  It  is  a 
thing  to  cause  the  blood  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  to  boil  within  him, 
every  drop  of  it,  too.  Moreover,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  not  simply 
that  new  matter  has  been  introduced,  but  that  statements  which 
have  been  made  by  the  defendant  again  and  again  upon  this 
floor  in  respect  to  doctrines  which  he  rejects,  have  beein  again 
attributed  to  him.  And  I  maintain  that  it  is  simply  a  matter  of 
fairness  and  candor  that  we  should  make  this  offer  to  Dr. 
Briggs,  whether  he  will  accept  it  or  not,  for  the  sake  of  the 
honor  of  this  House  and  in  the  way  of  decency." 

SPECIFICATION    SECOND. 

In  this,  that  while  the  said  Presbytery  in  obedience  to 
the  mandate  of  the  last  General  Assembly  has  issued 
and  tried  the  case,  it  has  not  tried  it  fully  on  the  merits 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  27 

thereof,  as  is  evinced  by  the  striking  out  of  Charges  IV. 
and  VII.  of  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications. 

SPECIFICA  TION     THIRD. 

In  this,  that  said  Presbytery,  in  said  final  judgment, 
by  attempting  to  relieve  the  said  Prosecuting  Commit- 
tee from  further  responsibility  in  connection  with  this 
case  appears  to  hinder  and  prevent  the  attainment  of 
the  ends  of  discipline,  apparently  aiming  to  now  ter- 
minate the  said  case,  and  thus  secure  the  same  result 
that  the  said  Presbytery  attempted  to  reach  on  Novem- 
ber 4th,  A.D.  1 89 1,  by  voting  to  dismiss  the  said  case. 

SPECIFICA  TION    FO  UR  TH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  in  said  final  judg- 
ment, expresses  "  an  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave 
issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and 
justly  determined  by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal 
discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment  and  process," 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  General  Assembly 
directed  the  case  to  be  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  and 
thereby  expressed  a  no  less  earnest  conviction  that  the 
grave  issues  involved  should  be  determined  by  judicial 
arraignment  and  process. 

SPECIFICATION    FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  sundry  members  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
to  wit:  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  Rev.  Henry  M. 
Field,  D.D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  J. 
Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.D..and  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,D.D., 
sat  and  deliberated  in  the  trial  of  this  case  and  voted  to 
acquit  the  said  accused,  upon  each  and  every  specifica- 
tion and  charge,  after  manifestations  of  prejudice  in  the 
conduct  of  the  case,  on  the  part   of  the  said   members 


23  THE  APPEAL 

was  pharged  in  the  appeal  to  and  sustained  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1892, 

SPECIFICATION    SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  sundry  Directors,  Officers  and  Professors 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  to  wit:  Rev.  Francis 
Brown,  D.D.,  Rev.  Edward  L.  Clark,  D.D.,  Rev.  Charles 
R.  Gillett,  D.D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev. 
J.  Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.D.,  Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  Rev. 
W.  M.  Smith,  D.D.,  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  D.D., 
and  William  A.  Wheelock,  Esq.,  sat  and  deliberated  in 
the  said  trial  and  voted  to  acquit  the  said  accused  upon 
each  and  every  specification  and  charge,  said  Directors. 
Officers  and  Professors  having  previously  approved  and 
published  the  said  Inaugural  Address,  as  appears  in  the 
first  edition  which  bears  the  imprint :  "  Printed  for  The 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  1891,"  "Copy- 
right, 1891,  by  The  Union  Theological  Seminary,"  and 
as  also  appears  in  the  second  edition  of  said  Inaugural 
Address,  which  was  also  "Copyright,  1891,  by  The 
Union  Theological  Seminary,"  which  said  Inaugural 
Address  contained  the  alleged  erroneous  doctrines  for 
the  holding  and  publishing  of  which  doctrines  the  accused 
was  then  on  trial. 

Fifth  Ground  of  Appeal. 

mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision. 

specification  first. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  having  declared  the 
said  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  sufficient  in 
form  and  legal  effect  and  the  said  accused  having  re- 
peatedly admitted  the  facts  as  set  forth  in  the  said  sev- 
eral Specifications,  the  said  Presbytery  was  inconsistent 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  29 

and  erred  in  not  accepting  the  said  admissions  of  the 
said  accused  and  in  not  sustaining  the  said  Charges  as 
its  final  judgment. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION    SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Pres- 
bytery was  not  warranted  by  the  law  and  the  evidence, 
because  the  Court  had  decided  that  the  Charges  were 
sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect ;  that  is,  it  had  already 
substantially  determined  that  if  the  accused  had  taught 
the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  charged,  he  was  guilty 
of  an  offence  The  several  Charges  alleged  an  offence 
and  the  several  allegations  were  proved  by  extracts 
from  the  Inaugural  Address  cited  in  the  several  Specifi- 
cations, and  said  extracts  were  admitted  as  authentical 
by  the  accused,  and  were  not  retracted  by  him.  The 
proof  was  therefore  complete.  Said  accused  also  intro- 
duced his  own  writings  as  evidence,  which  writings,  so 
introduced,  contained  the  extracts  recited  by  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee  in  the  several  Specifications.  If  the 
accused  had  brought  evidence  to  show  that  he  had  made 
no  such  utterances  as  were  contained  in  the  specifica- 
tions, then  and  then  only  should  he  have  been  "  fully 
acquitted."  The  indictment  had  been  found  in  order. 
The  evidence  was  unchallenged  and  the  judgment  should 
have  been  "  guilty  as  charged." 

SPECIFICATION    THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Pres- 
bytery, which  disclaims  to  be  an  expression  of  the  ap- 
proval of  the  critical  or  theological  views  embodied  in 
the  said  Inaugural  Address,  is,  in  fact,  an  approval  of 
said  critical  or  theological  views  and  will  have  the 
effect  of  encouraging  the  dissemination  of  said  views 


30  THE  APPEAL 

and  will  further  increase  the  present  disquietude  in  the 
said  Presbyterian  Church  and  practically  sets  at  naught 
the  declaration  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  as 
found  on  page  179  of  its  Minutes,  in  which  said  Gen- 
eral Assembly  "  reminds  all  under  its  care  that  it  is  a 
fundamental  doctrine  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  the  inspired  and  infallible  word  of  God,"  and  that 
"our  Church  holds  that  the  inspired  Word,  as  it  came 
from  God,  is  without  error.  The  assertion  of  the  con- 
trary cannot  but  shake  the  confidence  of  the  people  in 
the  sacred  Books." 

SPECIFICATION    FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  is  vague  and  un- 
certain, inasmuch  as  said  judgment  gives  due  considera- 
tion to  the  defendant's  explanation  of  the  language 
used  in  his  Inaugural  Address  and  accepts  his  disclaimer 
,  of  the  interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of 
its  phrases  and  illustrations,  but  does  not  specify  which 
explanations,  phrases  or  illustrations,  or  whether  such 
explanations  or  disclaimers  relate  to  the  portions  of  the 
said  Inaugural  Address  upon  which  the  Charges  and 
Specifications  are  based,  and  the  said  judgment  is  also 
vague  and  uncertain  in  the  statement  that  the  said  ac- 
cused has  not  transgressed  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed 
under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship  and  opinion. 

SPECIFICATION    FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  is  based  wholly, 
or  in  part,  on  the  affirmation  of  loyalty  made  by  the 
said  defendant  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church  and  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  when  such  affirmations  consisted  only  of 
unsworn   statements,  which  statements  were  not  com- 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  31 

petent  evidence  and  should  have  had  no  greater  weight 
or  influence  in  shaping  the  final  judgment  than  the 
ordinary  and  technical  plea  of  "  not  guilty." 

SPECIFICATION    SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  received  and  was 
moved  by  unsworn  and  improper  testimony  in  making 
its  decision  or  final  judgment,  said  improper  testimony 
being  statements  and  arguments  for  the  defence  of  said 
accused,  touching  the  merits  of  the  case  and  being  ex- 
planations made  by  the  accused  of  the  language  used  in 
his  Inaugural  Address  and  also  statements  referred  to 
in  the  said  final  judgment,  as  a  frank  and  full  disclaimer 
of  the  interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of 
its  phrases  and  illustrations  and  in  giving  to  the  argu- 
ment of  the  said  accused,  as  counsel  in  his  own  behalf, 
the  consideration  due  to  sworn  and  approbated  testi- 
mony as  provided  for  in  Sections  6i  and  62  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  said  final  judgment  is  vague  and  mislead- 
ing and  confounds  unjustifiable  controversy  with  useful 
and  constitutional  discipline,  ignoring  the  fact  that 
*'  The  ends  of  Discipline  are  the  maintenance  of  the 
truth,  the  vindication  of  the  authority  and  honor  of 
Christ,  the  removal  of  offences,  the  promotion  of  the 
purity  and  edification  of  the  Church,  and  the  spiritual 
good  of  offenders."     (Book  of  Discipline,  Sec.  2.) 

SPECIF ICA  TION  EIGHTH. 

In  this,  that  said  final  judgment  is  misleading  and 
unjust,  because  it  evidently  but  erroneously  aims  to  set 
forth  that  there  has  been  an  effort  to  convict  the  accused 
by  inference  or  implication,  and  in  quoting  the  words 


32  THE  APPEAL 

"  there  are  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men 
of  good  character  may  differ,"  seems  to  deny  and  make 
light  of  the  well-established  principle  of  our  polity, 
that  there  are  also  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to 
which  men  of  good  character,  who  have  assumed  the 
ordination  vows  of  a  Minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  should  not  differ. 

SPECIFICATION  iVINTH. 

In  this,  that  upon  December  28th,  1892,  when  the 
Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.D,,  offered  a  resolution  as 
follows,  to  wit : 

"  The  Court  deems  it  proper  to  declare  that  a  vote  by 
any  member  of  this  Court  not  to  sustain  the  charges 
preferred  against  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  does  not 
denote  approval  of  his  theological  or  critical  views  or  of 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  advanced,  but  only 
a  judgment  that  the  specific  charges  have  not  been 
established,"  and  after  the  said  resolution  had  been  dis- 
cussed, it  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  subsequently,  after 
the  vote  on  the  Charges  and  Specifications  had  been 
taken  the  said  resolution  of  Dr.  Alexander  was  again 
taken  up  and  referred  to  the  Committee  appointed  to 
prepare  the  final  judgment. 

SPECIFICATION    TENTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  on  January  9th, 
A.D.  1893,  sitting  in  private  session,  refused  to  strike 
out  of  the  resolution  offered  by  Rev.  Geo.  Alexander, 
D.D.,  and  referred  to  in  Specification  Ninth,  the  words, 
"  does  not  denote  approval  of  his  theological  or  critical 
views  or  of  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been 
advanced." 


TO  THE  GENERAL  ASISEMBLY  33 

SPECIFIC  A  TION  ELE  VENTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Pres- 
bytery is  contradictory  in  form  and  effect,  because  in 
said  final  judgment  the  said  Judicatory  disclaimed  agree- 
ment with  the  critical  or  theological  views  held  by  the 
accused,  which  were  pronounced  by  said  Judicatory 
when  they  voted  not  to  sustain  the  charges,  as  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards.  By  reason 
of  their  ordination  vows  and  obligations,  the  views  of 
all  the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  must  be  assumed 
to  have  been  in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures  and 
Standards.  Therefore,  if  the  views  of  the  accused  were 
in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards,  and 
if  the  views  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  said 
Judicatory  were  not  in  agreement  with  those  of  the 
accused,  then  the  views  of  the  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  said  Judicatory  must,  according  to  the  final  judg- 
ment, have  been  in  disagreement  with  the  Scriptures  and 
the  Standards. 

It  cannot  be  urged  that  there  was  room  for  the  agree- 
ment of  both  the  views  of  the  accused  and  the  views  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  with 
the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards,  because  said  Judica- 
tory had  already  determined  when  the  charges  were  pro- 
nounced sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  that  the  said 
views,  if  held  by  the  accused,  constituted  an  offence. 
The  Judicatory  was  therefore  shut  up  to  one  of  two 
legal  and  proper  courses,  either  to  declare  that  they 
agreed  with  the  views  of  the  accused,  or  to  declare  that 
the  views  of  the  accused  disagreed  with  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Standards.  In  the  former  case  they  should 
have  refrained  from  disclaiming  agreement  with  the 
views  of  the  accused  ;  in  the  latter  case  they  should  have 


34  THE  APPEAL  TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 

voted  to  sustain  the  charges.  There  is,  therefore,  a 
contradiction  in  the  form  and  effect  of  the  final  judgment. 
And  in  conclusion  your  Appellant  prays  your  Vener- 
able Body,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  to  receive  and 
issue  this  appeal,  and  to  take  therein  such  action  as  in 
your  wisdom  may  seem  best,  in  order  to  secure  and  pre- 
serve the  purity  and  peace  of  our  Church. 

The   Presbyterian  Church  in   the    United    States   of 
America  represented  by 

George  W.  F.  Birch,  ] 
Joseph  J.  Lampe,  |  Prosecuting 

Robert  F.  Sample,       }►  Committee. 
John  J.  Stevenson,  Appellant. 

John  J.  McCook, 


II. 

ARGUMENT  AGAINST   ENTERTAINING  THE   APPEAL. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  General 
Assetnhly  of  the  Presbyterian  Chtirch  in  the  United 
States  of  A  merica  : 

I  appear  before  you  at  this  time  to  resist  the  enter- 
tainment of  the  Appeal  entitled  "  Appeal  to  the  General 
Assembly  from  the  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  rendered  January  9th,  1893." 

THE   STATEMENT   OF  THE   QUESTION. 

(i).  The  Book  of  Discipline  (99)  makes  Dr.  Briggs 
the  appellee  in  the  case  against  him  and  he  is  required 
by  law  to  resist  the  entertainment  of  the  Appeal  against 
the  action  of  his  Presbytery  in  acquitting  him.  He  is  not 
allowed  to  employ  professional  counsel ;  for  the  law  is : 

"  No  professional  counsel  shall  be  permitted  to  appear  and 
plead  in  cases  of  process  in  any  of  our  ecclesiastical  judicatories. 
But  if  any  accused  person  feel  unable  to  represent  and  plead  his 
own  cause  to  advantage,  he  may  request  any  minister  or  elder, 
belonging  to  the  judicatory  before  which  he  appears,  to  prepare 
and  exhibit  his  cause  as  he  may  judge  proper."  (Book  of 
Discipline,  26.) 

If  the  appellee  had  been  allowed  to  employ  profes- 
sional counsel  he  would  have  done  so ;  or,  if  it  had  been 
practicable  to  employ  a  member  of  the  Judicatory  at  a 

(35) 


3g  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

sufficient  time  in  advance  of  the  meeting  of  the  Judica- 
tory to  enable  him  to  master  all  the  details  of  the  case, 
he  would  have  employed  him  ;  for  it  is  doubtful  whether 
under  present  circumstances  the  accused  can  plead  his 
own  cause  to  advantage.  There  is  danger  lest  hostilit)' 
to  the  appellee,  or  his  opinions,  may  influence  the  court 
in  their  determination  of  the  purely  legal  questions  in-  ' 
volved  in  the  entertainment  of  the  Appeal.  There  is 
danger  lest  the  appearance  of  the  appellee  before  you 
may  force  your  attention  to  his  personality  and  his 
opinions  and  so  obstruct  your  consideration  of  the  legal 
arguments  he  has  to  present  to  you. 

It  will  be  difficult  for  you  to  distinguish  between  Dr. 
Briggs  as  defendant  and  Dr.  Briggs  as  counsel  for  the 
defendant.  This  situation  is  an  unfortunate  one  for  the 
appellee.  But  you  should  consider  that  it  is  not  of  his 
choice ;  it  is  a  situation  forced  upon  him  by  the  Book 
of  Discipline.  It  is  necessary  for  him  to  rise  above  all 
personal  considerations  in  the  discussion  of  the  enter- 
tainment of  the  Appeal.  It  is  necessary  that  the  court 
should  do  likewise.  He  appears  before  you  not  as  Dr. 
Briggs,  but  as  the  attorney  for  Dr.  Briggs ;  and  he  asks 
you,  as  his  attorney,  to  ever  bear  in  mind  that  the  ques- 
tion now  before  you  is  not  whether  Dr.  Briggs  is  right 
or  wrong  in  his  opinions  or  in  his  conduct,  but  simply 
and  alone  whether  the  Appeal  can  legally  be  entertained. 

(2).  The  Book  of  Discipline  carefully  distingiiislies  bc- 
ttveen  the  entertainment  of  tJie  Appeal  and  the  sustaining  of 
the  Appeal.  (99). — The  consideration  of  the  merits  of 
the  Appeal  is  not  lawful  until  the  question  of  the  sus- 
taining of  the  Appeal  is  in  order.  The  lawful  order  now 
is  whether  the  Appeal  shall  be  entertained.  We  should 
banish  from  our  minds,  therefore,  the  merits  of  the  Ap- 
peal.    Neither  the  appellants  nor  the  appellee  are  al- 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION  ;>7 

lowed  to  enter  into  the  merits  of  the  Appeal  at  this  stage 
of  it.  We  would  be  called  to  order  if  we  should  venture 
on  this  forbidden  ground.  Still  less  is  it  lawful  for  the 
judges  to  enter  into  the  merits  of  the  Appeal  prema- 
turely in  their  consideration  of  the  entertainment  of  the 
Appeal.  The  Moderator  cannot  call  you  to  order  for 
your  thoughts,  and  feelings,  and  desires.  But  as  a  court 
it  is  assumed  that  you  have  that  self-restraint  without 
which  you  would  be  incompetent  to  sit  as  judges  in  the 
case. 

It  is  true  that  the  grounds  of  the  Appeal  have  been 
read  to  you  and  so  brought  before  your  minds,  and  you 
are  therefore  exposed  to  the  temptation  to  consider 
them.  But  the  grounds  of  the  Appeal  were  not  read 
before  you  in  order  that  you  might  consider  their  merits 
at  this  stage.  They  were  read  as  a  part  of  the  Appeal 
in  order  that  the  whole  Appeal  might  be  before  you. 
The  Appeal  was  read  that  you  might  see  its  whole  form 
and  structure,  not  that  you  might  consider  its  matter.  It 
is  impossible  to  present  the  form  to  the  eye  and  ear  with- 
out the  matter.  And  yet  we  may,  and  we  must,  distin- 
guish in  our  argument  between  the  form  and  the  matter. 
The  question  of  entertainment  has  to  do  with  the  form 
of  the  Appeal,  the  question  of  sustaining  it  has  to  do 
with  its  matter.  We  now  have  to  con.sider  the  form  of 
the  Appeal  in  order  to  determine  all  preliminary  ques- 
tions relating  to  it.  The  questions  to  be  determined 
now  are  not  whether  there  are  valid  and  lawful  grounds 
of  appeal  which  will  justify  you  in  sustaining  it,  if  that 
question  should  arise ;  but  you  have  to  determine  the 
preliminary  questions  whether  the  Appeal  is  against  a 
final  judgment  of  a  Judicatory,  whether  the  appellants 
are  an  original  party,  whether  the  General  Assembly  can 
lawfully  take  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  and  other  like  pre- 


38  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

liminary  questions.  Granting  for  the  moment  that  the 
appellants  may  be  justified  in  every  one  of  their  grounds 
of  appeal,  and  that  you  feel  sure  that  you  would  sustain 
the  Appeal  for  the  reasons  assigned ;  yet  if  they  do  not 
appeal  from  a  final  judgment,  if  they  are  not  an  original 
party,  if,  for  any  valid  reason,  the  General  Assembly 
cannot  take  jurisdiction  of  the  case ;  the  Appeal  cannot 
lawfully  be  entertained  even  if  its  merits  should  be  the 
greatest  conceivable.  The  court  should  therefore  keep 
firmly  in  mind  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
merits  of  the  Appeal  at  this  stage  of  it,  but  simply  and 
alone  with  the  question  ivhether  it  is  lawful  to  entertain 
the  Appeal. 

I.— HOW   FAR    IS  THE  APPEAL  AGAINST  THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT? 

The  Book  of  Discipline  limits  Appeals  to  final  judg- 
ments. 

"  An  Appeal  is  the  removal  of  a  judicial  case,  by  a 
written  representation,  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  ju- 
dicatory; and  may  be  taken,  by  either  of  the  original 
parties,  from  the  final  judgment  of  the  lower  judicatory." 

(94.) 

The  Appeal  we  are  now  considering  is  alleged  to  be 
in  the  title  :  '^  from  the  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of  NewYork,  rendered  Jan.  9th,  1893." 

(i).  The  ivord '■^  decision'"  in  the  title  of  the  Appeal  is 
either  redundant  and  so  adds  nothing  to  the  words  ^^  final 
judgment,''  or  else  it  implies  something  additional  to 
^^  final  judgment.''  In  either  case  it  has  no  place  in  the 
Appeal — for  if  it  be  redundant  it  mars  the  simplicity  and 
precision  of  a  legal  document,  and  even  if  it  was  not  de- 
signed to  mean  more  than  final  judgment  there  is  danger 
lest  it  may  either  consciously  or  unconsciously  suggest 
to  some  minds  more  than  the  law  allows.     If  it  implies 


HOW   FAR  AGAINST   THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT  39 

something  additional  to  the  final  judgment  and  this  im- 
plication is  found  in  the  matter  of  the  Appeal,  then  the 
Appeal  is  something  more  than  an  Appeal  against  a  final 
judgment  and  so  far  invalid.  It  needs  but  a  cursory  ex- 
amination of  the  Appeal  to  see  that  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  it  extends  beyond  the  limits  of  a  final  judgment. 
This  is  indeed  clear  from  the  professions  of  the  Appeal 
itself  when  it  is  said:  "From  the  aforesaid  action,  de- 
cision and  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  N.  Y. — 
we  the  undersigned,  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  in  the 
said  case  do  hereby  appeal  to  your  Venerable  Body"  (p. 
15).  So  far  as  this  is  an  appeal  against  any  action  or 
decision  of  the  Presbytery  other  than  a  final  judgvient  it 
is  not  a  lawful  appeal.  Therefore  you  cannot  lazvfully 
entertain  it  until  all  this  irrelevant  material  relating  to 
actions  and  decisions  of  the  Presbytery  has  been  removed 
from  the  Appeal. 

(2).  The  alleged  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  N'ew 
York  from  which  they  appeal,  ^^  pronounces  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences  alleged 
against  him!'  This  acquittal  with  such  reasons  as  are 
assigned  therefore,  constitutes  the  final  judgment,  if  this 
be  a  final  judgment.  For  the  Book  of  Discipline  pre- 
scribes that  after  the  parties  have  been  heard, 

— "  the  judicatory  shall  then  go  into  private  session — the  parties, 
their  counsel,  and  all  other  persons  not  members  of  the  body, 
being  excluded  ;  when,  after  careful  deliberation,  the  judicatory 
shall  proceed  to  vote  on  each  specification  and  on  each  charge 
separately,  and  judgment  shall  be  entered  accordingly."  (33). 

That  only  is  a  final  judgment  which  conforms  with 
this  rule.  If  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  deemed  it 
wise  to  combine  with  their  final  judgment  decisions  of 
any  kind  in  the  exercise  of  its  functions  of  government, 
or  advice  oi  any  kind  in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  func- 


40  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

tions,  such  a  combination  may  not  have  been  in  good 
form  or  in  the  best  taste ;  but  such  decisions  and  such 
advice  cannot  be  regarded  as  parts  of  the  final  judgment 
and  so  subject  to  appeal.  For  the  law  prescribes  that 
the  final  judgment  shall  be  entered  according  to  the  vote 
and  therefore  can  contain  nothing  that  was  not  in  the 
vote,  namely,  the  non-sustaining  of  the  charges  and  spec- 
ifications, that  is  to  say,  the  acquittal  and  its  reasons. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Appeal  is 
not  against  the  non-sustaining  of  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications, but  against  action  and  decisions  of  the  Presby- 
tery. All  this  irrelevant  material  should  be  eliminated 
from  the  Appeal  as  invalid  and  iinlazvfiil,  before  yon  can 
lawfully  entertain  it. 

{a).  What  matters  it  that  the  Presbytery  acquit  Dr. 
Briggs  "  without  expressing  approval  of  the  critical  or 
theological  views  embodied  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed  or  illus- 
trated "?  This  reservation  of  approval  is  not  a  part  of 
the  final  judgment  even  if  it  is  embraced  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  same  paragraph.  The  final  judgment  is  simply 
and  alone  the  acquittal  with  its  reasons.  The  Presby- 
tery may  have  done  right  or  wrong  in  this  reservation 
of  approval.  It  is  not  lawful  to  discuss  that  question 
here.  But  it  is  lawful  for  me  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  such  reservation  of  approval  is  no  part  of 
the  final  judgment  prescribed  in  the  Book  of  Discipline 
and  that  therefore  that  reservation  of  approval  cannot 
lawfully  be  appealed  from. 

{b).  The  action  of  the  Presbytery,  whether  right  or 
wrong  in  relieving  "  the  committee  from  further  respon- 
sibility in  connection  with  the  case,"  though  adopted  in 
the  Report  of  the  committee  which  contained  the 
alleged  final  judgment,  is  entirely  apart  from  the  non- 


UO'.V   FAR  AGAINST  THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT  41 

sustaining  of  the  charges  and  specifications,  and  is  not 
a  final  judgment,  or  part  of  a  final  judgment.  It  can- 
not therefore  be  appealed  from,  but  only  complained 
of.  This  decision  of  the  Presbytery  was  made  in  the 
exercise  of  its  functions  of  government,  not  in  the  exer- 
cise of  its  functions  as  a  court. 

(c).  The  Presbytery,  in  adopting  the  Report  of  the 
committee, 

— "  earnestly  counsels  its  members  to  avoid,  on  the  one  hand,  hasty 
or  over  confident  statement  of  private  opinion  on  points  con- 
cerning which  profound  and  reverent  students  of  God's  Word 
are  not  yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other,  suspicions  and  charges  of 
false  teaching  which  are  not  clearly  capable  of  proof. 

"  Moreover  the  Presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  subject  to 
its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things  in  which  we 
agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things  in  which  we  differ, 
and  turning  from  the  paths  of  controversy  to  devote  their  ener- 
gies to  the  great  and  urgent  work  of  the  Church  which  is  the 
proclamation  of  the  Gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  Body  of 
Christ." 

This  counsel,  advice  and  exhortation  may  be  right  or 
it  may  be  wrong.  It  is  not  lawful  for  me  to  discuss  that 
question  here.  But  it  is  lawful  for  me  to  say  that  such 
counsel,  advice  and  exhortation  were  given  by  the  Pres- 
bytery in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  functions.  It 
is  entirely  independent  of  the  non-sustaining  of  the 
charges ;  it  forms  no  part  of  a  final  judgment  and 
therefore  cannot  lawfully  be  appealed  from.  The  only 
remedy  for  error  or  wrong  in  this  episcopal  action  was 
complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

Possibly  the  Presbytery  committed  an  error  in  all  of 
these  decisions  and  counsels  which  were  added  to  the 
alleged  final  judgment  and  embraced  in  the  one  paper 
reported  by  a  committee  and  adopted  by  the  Presby- 
tery, January  9,   1893.     It  is  not  for  me  to  go  into  the 


42  EMTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

merits  of  that  question.  But  it  is  my  right  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  even  if  all  these  decisions,  and 
all  this  counsel,  and  all  these  actions  were  unwise,  un- 
lawful and  unjust,  to  the  utmost  extent  conceivable, 
they  are  no  parts  of  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presby- 
tery in  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs ;  they  were  not  in- 
volved in  the  vote  not  to  sustain  the  charges ;  but  they 
were  simply  decisions  and  actions  of  the  Presbytery  in 
the  exercise  of  its  governmental  functions,  and  counsels 
of  the  Presbytery  in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  func- 
tions which  may  be  complained  of  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York  but  not  appealed  from  as  a  final  judgment.  And 
therefore  you  cannot  entertain  an  Appeal  from  such 
action,  decisions  and  counsels.  Vou  are  legally  bound 
to  require  the  appellants  io  remove  all  this  irrevelant  ma- 
terial from  their  Appeal  before  you  can  entertain  it ;  for 
appeals  are  strictly  limited  to  final  judgmeiits  and  to  them 
alone. 

(3),  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  were  certainly  in- 
cautious in  their  final  proceedings  in  the  case  against 
Dr.  Briggs.  On  December  30,  1892,  they  voted  upon 
the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  giving  the  de- 
cision of  the  Presbytery  not  to  sustain  the  Charges  and 
Specifications  by  majorities  ranging  from  six  to  twenty- 
four.  According  to  the  Book  of  Discipline  they  ought 
then  to  have  entered  their  judgment  according  to  this 
vote.  Instead  of  taking  this  course,  after  the  Moder- 
ator had  announced  that  Dr.  Briggs  had  been  acquitted 
on  all  the  charges,  he  appointed  a  committee  from  those 
who  voted  not  to  sustain,  to  formulate  the  opinion  of 
the  majority,  and  the  judicatory  took  recess  until  Jan- 
uary 9,  1893,  when  the  Report  of  the  committee  was 
made  and  adopted  by  a  7iiva  voce  vote.  The  Report  of 
this  committee  contained  a  formulation  of  the  opinion 


HOW  FAR  AGAINST  THE   FINAL  JUDGMENT  43 

of  the  majority,  not  only  as  to  the  final  judgment  of 
the  court,  but  also  as  to  decisions  in  the  exercise  of  the 
governmental  functions  of  the  Presbytery  and  advice 
in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  functions.  The  question 
arises  when  was  the  final  judgment  pronounced  and 
which  is  the  final  judgment.  Is  the  final  judgment  tlie 
announcement  of  the  moderator  that  Dr.  Briggs  had 
been  acquitted  of  all  the  charges — or  was  the  final  judg- 
ment given  when  the  Presbytery  adopted  the  Report  of 
the  committee  t^n  dzys  ^iiterwdird}  It  is  claimed  that  the 
decision  was  rendered  on  December  10th  when  the  vote 
7vas  taken  and  annomiced  by  the  moderator  as  a  vote  of 
acquittal.  It  is  claimed  by  the  defendant  that  he  was 
not  and  could  not  lawfully  be  exposed  to  a  reversal  of 
that  verdict  by  a  change  in  the  constituent  members  of 
the  court  at  a  subsequent  meeting  ten  days  afterwards. 
There  was  a  considerable  change  in  the  membership  of 
the  court.  Many  members  of  the  court  were  absent. 
There  was  a  possibility  of  a  sufificient  change  in  voters 
to  make  a  decision  not  in  accordance  with  the  vote  not 
to  sustain  the  charges  and  specifications  on  December 
30th.  There  was  time  for  various  influences  from  out- 
side the  court  to  induce  it  to  make  a  politic  deliverance, 
rather  than  a  deliverance  in  accordance  with  justice  and 
right.  The  law  does  not  contemplate  such  possibilities, 
for  it  says  the  judgment  vtnst  be  entered  according  to  the 
vote.  It  is  claimed  by  the  defendant  that  he  was  not 
and  could  not  lawfully  be  exposed  to  a  peril  of  a  re- 
versal of  the  acquittal  in  a  superior  court  by  any  mis- 
takes whether  material  or  formal  which  may  have  been 
committed  by  a  majority  of  the  Presbytery  at  a  subse- 
quent meeting  ten  days  after  the  vote  which  pronounced 
him  innocent  and  acquitted  of  all  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications.    He   could    not    lawfully   be   exposed   to   the 


44  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

peril  of  a  reversal  because  of  any  unlawful  procedure  of 
an  intermediate  party  which  sought  the  peace  and  quiet 
of  the  Church  whether  at  the  cost  of  the  defendant  or 
of  the  prosecutors,  or  of  both  of  them.  Yet  this  is 
just  the  peril  to  which  the  defendant  is  now  exposed  by 
such  alleged  mistakes  in  the  action  of  the  Presbytery 
on  January  q,  1893,  perils  to  which  he  would  not  have 
been  exposed  if  the  Presbytery  had  entered  its  final 
judgment  according  to  the  vote  on  December  30,  1892. 
It  is  claimed  that  any  appeal  in  order  to  be  lawful 
should  be  made  against  the  final  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
bytery so  far  as  that  judgment  accords  with  the  decision 
acquitting  Dr.  Briggs,  on  December  30,  1892,  which  de- 
cision was  announced  by  the  moderator  as  an  acquittal 
according  to  the  vote.  The  Appeal  now  before  you  is 
not  against  such  a  final  judgment  according  to  the  vote 
of  December  30th,  but  against  an  alleged  final  judg- 
ijient  of  January  9th,  expressing  the  advice  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, and  the  opinion  of  the  Presbytery  on  a  variety 
of  matters  which  were  not  according  to  the  vote  of  De- 
cember 30th.  It  is  not  therefore  a  lawful  Appeal  and 
you  cannot  entertain  it  until  all  this  irrelevant  material 
is  removed. 

(4).  If  any  one  should  contend  that  these  are  purely 
technical  objections  which  ought  not  to  be  made  in  an 
ecclesiastical  court  as  a  bar  to  justice  and  right  ;  and  if 
any  one  should  urge  that  the  decision  of  December  30th, 
that  Dr.  Briggs  had  been  acquitted  on  all  the  charges,  was 
renewed  in  the  adoption  of  the  Report  of  the  Comrnittee 
on  January  9th,  in  their  words :  "  The  Presbytery  pro- 
nounces the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  fully  acquitted 
of  the  offences  alleged  against  him,"  and  that  therefore 
the  two  actions  are  substantially  identical ;  let  such  an  one 
consider  {a)  that  the  appellants  do  not  limit  their  Appeal 


HOW  FAR  AGAINST  THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  45 

to  this  clause  of  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  that  date 
acquitting  Dr.  Briggs  of  the  offences  alleged  against  him, 
but  they  make  their  Appeal  chiefly  against  other  parts  of 
that  action  which  were  not  contemplated  in  the  vote  of 
acquittal  Dec.  30th  ;  {b)  that  the  defendant  is  entitled  to 
the  final  judgment  in  its  legal  form  as  based.on  the  de- 
cision of  December  30th,  and  should  not  be  required  to 
defend  another  alleged  final  judgment  which  is  open  to 
attack  because  it  is  much  more  than  a  final  judgment ; 
{c)  that  it  is  not  right  to  put  the  defendant  in  jeopardy  a 
second  time  because  of  any  alleged  mistakes  the  court 
may  have  made  at  a  later  date  after  the  verdict  was  ren- 
dered ;  {d]  that  if  the  defendant  should  waive  this  tech- 
nical objection  how  could  he  be  assured  that  the  court 
of  the  General  Assembly  would  secure  him  in  his  other 
rights?  His  experience  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery 
and  in  the  court  of  the  last  General  Assembly  has  been 
that  his  waiver  of  rights  has  only  stimulated  the  prose- 
cution in  their  demands  for  all  that  they  could  possibly 
get  from  those  judicatories.  Why  should  the  appellee 
waive  his  rights  when  the  appellants  are  seeking  to  de- 
prive him  of  his  ecclesiastical  life  ?  For  all  of  these 
reasons  the  General  Assembly  cannot  lawfully  entertain 
the  Appeal.  The  Appeal  is  not  so  much  against 
the  final  judgment  contained  in  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  of  January  9th,  according  to  the  decision  in 
the  vote  of  December  30th,  as  against  the  exercise  of  the 
governmental  and  episcopal  functions  of  the  Presbytery, 
contained  in  that  action,  and  you  cannot  legally  entertain 
the  Appeal  tintil  all  this  irrelevant  material  shall  be  re- 
moved from  it. 


46  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

II.— IT  IS   UNI^WFUL   FOR  A  PARTY  CLAIMING  TO    BE   A   PUBLIC 
PROSECUTOR  TO  APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL. 

The  Appeal,  if  it  be  a  lawful  Appeal  against  a  final 
judgment,  is  an  appeal  against  the  verdict  acquitting  a 
minister  from  the  charge  of  heresy. 

(i).  Heresy  is  defined  by  Blacksto?ie  as  a  denial  of 
''essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  publicly  and  obsti- 
nately avpzvedy  So  the  Book  of  Discipline  defines  it  as 
errors  which  "  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion  a)id  are  in- 
dustriously spread!'  (41.)  The  defendant  was  libelled 
with  just  this  heresy  in  six  charges,  and  was  acquitted  of 
them  all  by  the  Presbytery.  Ecclesiastical  law  has  al- 
ways regarded  heresy  as  a  deadly  sin  and  a  crime  to  be 
visited  with  capital  punishment.  In  civil  law  so  long  as 
civil  law  enforced  the  judgments  of  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunals, heresy  was  a  crime  against  civil  government  also. 
The  final  judgment  of  the  ecclesiastical  court,  if  it  was  a 
condemnation  of  the  alleged  heretic,  was  ordinarily  fol- 
lowed by  the  writ  "  de  hceretico  coviburcndo  "  issued  by 
the  crown,  and  the  heretic  was  burned  at  the  stake. 
Many  such  alleged  heretics  were  burned  to  death  all 
over  Europe  :  John  Huss  at  Constance,  Savonarola  at 
Florence,  Servetus  at  Geneva,  Cramner,  Ridley  and  Lati- 
mer at  Oxford.  Even  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  two 
Anabaptists  were  burned,  and  in  the  reign  of  James  I. 
two  Arians.  But  in  the  middle  of  the  17th  century,  in 
England,  the  civil  law  contented  itself  with  the  imprison- 
ment of  the  heretics  and  the  burning  of  the  writings  in 
the  market-place  by  the  common  hangman. 

In  the  development  of  religious  liberty  in  Great  Britain 
in  the  i8th  century  the  punishment  of  heretics  by  the 
civil  authorities  passed  out  of  use.  In  the  United  States 
of  America,  with  the  separation  of  Church  and  State, 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL     47 

which  is  embedded  in  our  constitution,  the  civil  law  takes 
no  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  offences  and  reserves  to 
itself  the  power  over  the  person,  liberty  and  life  of  men. 
Therefore  an  ecclesiastical  judgment  cannot  deprive  a 
man  of  his  limbs,  his  liberty,  or  his  life.  But  it  goes  as 
far  as  it  is  possible  to  go  and  puts  a  man  in  jeopardy  of 
his  ecclesiastical  life.  The  lack  of  power  in  the  Church 
in  this  country  at  the  present  time  to  enforce  its  deci- 
sions by  any  penalties  of  life,  or  liberty,  or  limb,  and  the 
ease  with  which  a  man  condemned  as  a  heretic  by  one 
denomination  may  find  a  home  in  another  denomination, 
has  weakened  the  sense  of  the  seriousness  of  the  sin  of 
lieresy. 

Heresy  is  defined  in  our  Book  of  Discipline  as  "  errors 
which  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion."  These  are  some- 
thing more  than  mere  differences  of  opinion  between 
men  who  are  good  and  true.  These  are  far  more  serious 
than  such  questions  as  may  be  decided  by  the  Presbytery, 
Synod,  or  General  Assembly  by  majority  votes.  They 
are  errors  which  can  only  be  determined  by  a  judicial 
process  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church.  They  are  errors  which  involve  a  process  of 
criminal  law — the  charge  of  gross  offences  "  striking  at 
the  vitals  of  religion  ";  a  plea  of  guilty^  or  not  guilty ; 
an  acquittal,  or  a  sentence  for  an  ecclesiastical  crime  ; 
and  a  penalty  which  involves  either  the  suspension,  or' 
the  deprivation  of  ecclesiastical  life.  It  is  necessary 
therefore  for  this  court  to  consider  whether  it  is  laivful 
to  put  a  man  in  jeopardy  of  his  ecclesiastical  life  a  second 
time  for  offences  from  zvhicli  he  has  been  acquitted  after 
full  trial  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery.     \ 

(2).  The  Appeal  is  from  a  final  judgment  of  acquittal 
after  trial  by  the  court  of  the  Presbytery,  not  against  a 
decision  of  a  merely  voluntary  society.     It  is  true  that  in 


48  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

the  eyes  of  the  civil  law  the  Church  is  nothing  more 
than  a  voluntary  society,  a  social  and  religious  club,  with 
the  authority  to  determine  its  own  membership  and 
from  which  it  may  be  assumed  that  a  person  would  vol- 
untarily withdraw  when  he  becomes  uncongenial  to  his 
associates.  It  seems  probable  that  this  view  of  the 
Church  is  consciously  or  unconsciously  in.  the  minds  of 
a  large  number  of  our  ministers.  It  is  represented  in  the 
court  of  the  General  Assembly  by  a  member  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  who  in  a  recent  article  in  which  he 
has  been  preparing  himself  and  others  to  consider  this 
case  in  a  judicial  frame  of  mind  and  in  a  Christian  temper, 
represents  that  a  Presbyterian  minister  who  differs  from 
a  majority  of  the  ministry  of  the  denomination  is  honor- 
ably bound  to  retire  from  the  denomination.  The 
majority  have  the  authority  to  determine  whether  he  is 
right  or  wrong  in  his  opinions,  whether  he  is  guilty  of 
the  deadly  sin  of  heresy,  whether  he  has  been  striking  at 
the  vitals  of  the  Christian  religion.  This  is  a  plausible 
but  a  very  superficial  statement.  It  is  not  true  of  the 
laws  of  our  native  land.  It  is  a  principle  of  civil  govern- 
ment that  majorities  cannot  always  be  trusted.  A  major- 
ity in  the  House  of  Representatives  is  checked  by  the 
voice  of  the  Senate.  A  majority  of  both  Houses  of 
Congress  is  checked  by  the  veto  of  the  President.  The 
combined  action  of  both  the  executive  and  legislative 
branches  of  the  government  is  checked  by  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  So  it  has  been  the  policy  to 
put  checks  on  the  majority  in  ecclesiastical  courts.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  like  other  organized  churches  has  a 
system  of  checks  and  balances  of  power,  and  a  Supreme 
Court  for  the  ultimate  decision  of  constitutional  ques- 
tions. A  heresy  trial  does  not  raise  the  question  of  the 
opinion  of  majorities,  but  questions  of  law  and  of  right. 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A   VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  49 

The  Presbyterian  minister  vows  in  ordination  subjection 
to  his  brethren,  but  it  is  within  strictly  defined  Hmits — 
it  is  only  so  far  as  these  brethren  act  "  in  the  Lord,'' 
that  is,  as  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  claims  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  that : 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  king  and  head  of  his  church,  hath 
therein  appointed  a  government  in  the  hand  of  church  officers, 
distinct  from  the  civil  magistrates. 

"  To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  com- 
mitted, by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to  retain 
and  remit  sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom  against  the  impenitent, 
both  by  the  word  and  censures  ;  and  to  open  it  unto  penitent 
sinners,  by  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  by  absolution  from 
censures,  as  occasion  shall  require."     (Conf.  XXX.  i,  2.) 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
is  that  "  Discipline  is  the  exercise  of  that  authority,'  and 
the  application  of  that  system  of  laws  which  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  appointed  in  his  church."     (i.) 

Unless  the  majority  act  in  accordance  with  these  Pres- 
byterian principles  they  cannot  demand  that  any  Presby- 
terian minister  should  be  subject  to  their  decisions.  The 
vow  of  the  subjection  of  the  individual  to  his  brethren  is 
strictly  limited  by  the  obligation  of  the  Church  itself, 
and  of  every  minister  in  the  Church,  to  the  Form  of 
Government,  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  Holy  Scripture.  These  docu- 
ments make  up  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Within  these  constitutional  limits  the  majority 
may  exercise  their  right  to  decide  the  questions  legally 
brought  before  them.  If  they  transcend  these  limits 
their  decisions  do  not  bind  the  individual  or  the  Church, 
— they  are  altogether  null  and  void.  Every  minister, 
whether  he  differ  in  his  opinions  from  the  majority  or 


50 


ENTERTAINING   THE   APPEAL 


not,  has  the  right  to  all  these  constitutional  protections. 
Any  effort  of  a  majority  to  exact  of  him  more  than 
the  constitution  exacts,  and  to  condemn  him  for  opinions 
which  are  extra-confessional,  or  to  convict  him  for  heresy 
on  account  of  anything  that  does  not  strike  at  the  vitals 
of  rehgion,  would  be  revolutionary.  The  Church'  would 
thereby  divest  itself  of  its  judicial  functions  as  a  court  of 
Jesus  Christ,  it  would  put  away  its  constitution  and  its 
forms  of  jurisprudence.  It  would  assume  the  functions 
of  a  religious  society,  it  would  undertake  to  exercise  the 
rights  of  a  club.  It  might  be  very  good  club  law,  but  it 
would  not  be  ecclesiastical  law. 

Consider  the  consequences  of  this  extremely  low  view 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  pushes  off  the  ark  of 
the  Church  into  the  stream  to  drift  with  every  current 
of  traditionalism.  It  makes  any  real  reformation  of  the 
Church  impossible,  for  when  has  the  Church  been  revived 
or  reformed  by  majority  votes  ?  When  God  has  raised 
up  prophetic  men  to  be  the  leaders  in  any  reform,  major- 
ities have  always  been  against  them. 

This  unchurchly  view  makes  any  correction  of  tra- 
ditional error  impossible.  If  the  majority  have  been  led 
by  the  incompetence  and  blunders  of  mistaken  leaders 
into  false  positions ;  if  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
drifted  from  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  and  the 
doctrinal  and  the  ecclesiastical  position  of  the  West- 
minster divines ;  and  a  few  individuals  have  learned  this 
by  a  careful  study  of  the  long  neglected  original  author- 
ities ;  how  will  it  ever  be  possible  to  bring  the  Church 
back  to  its  true  position  if  the  majority  are  to  decide  by 
their  own  opinions  merely,  and  are  not  to  be  themselves 
corrected  by  the  historical  interpretation  of  their  own  con- 
stitution ?  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
will  give  itself  bound  hand  and  foot  into  the  power  of 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL     5^ 

an  accidental  majority  of  traditionalists.  It  will  main- 
tain its  constitutional  freedom  and  decide  the  questions 
now  before  it  as  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  a  constitutional  church. 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  ecclesiastical  law  that 
no  one  can  separate  himself  from  the  Church  without 
being  guilty  of  the  sin  of  schism.  It  is  assumed  that  the 
Christian  has  been  translated  out  of  the  realm  of  dark- 
ness into  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  God's  love  (Col. 
i.  13).  If  he  is  by  excommunication  cut  off  from  the 
Church,  he  is,  according  to  the  apostle  Paul,  handed 
over  to  Satan  (i  Cor,  v.  5).  If  he  voluntarily  withdraws 
from  the  Church,  he  re-enters  the  realm  of  darkness. 
That  is  the  theory  of  ecclesiastical  law,  whether  it  be 
right  or  wrong.  That  is  the  theory  upon  which  Church 
discipline  is  based.  A  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  it  is  assumed,  has  a  double  call,  a  divine  call 
from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  a  human  call  in  the  or- 
dination by  the  Church.  Until  recent  times  ministerial 
character  was  regarded  as  indelible.  It  could  not  be  re- 
nounced by  a  minister.  It  could  be  taken  from  him 
only  by  the  Church  which  gave  it  to  him,  after  a  sen- 
tence of  deposition  for  an  ecclesiastical  crime.  It  is  true 
that  a  Aveakened  sense  of  ministerial  functions  has 
wrought  a  change  in  recent  times.  A  minister  may  now 
renounce  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and 
have  his  name  erased  from  the  roll,  or  he  may  be  dis- 
missed to  another  denomination  at  his  own  request,  pro- 
vided he  is  not  on  trial.  If,  however,  charges  are  pend- 
ing against  him,  he  cannot  take  either  of  these  courses 
without  an  act  of  violence  which  would  not  exempt  him 
from  trial.  Therefore,  for  a  minister  against  whom 
charges  are  pending,  or  a  minister  who  has  a  high  sense 
of  the  ministerial  call,  who  knows   that  he  is  called  of 


52  ENTERTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

Jesus  Christ  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  who  has  con- 
scientious duties  to  perform  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
— one  who  has  been  called  to  represent  a  great  principle 
and  who  cannot  retire  from  the  Presbyterian  ministry 
without  the  disregard  of  known  duty — there  is  no  alter- 
native for  such  a  minister  but  to  abide  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministry  until  he  is  excluded  from  its  ministry  by  de- 
position after  trial.  The  ecclesiastical  court  is  obliged 
therefore,  sitting  as  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ  and  acting  in 
his  name,  to  consider  the  question  of  the  entertainment 
of  this  Appeal,  not  simply  as  involving  the  question 
whether  the  minister  shall  be  again  put  in  jeopardy  of 
suspension  or  exclusion  from  the  fellowship  of  a  merely 
voluntary  society  or  religious  club,  but  whether  or  not 
it  shall  reopen  the  question  already  decided  by  the  Pres- 
bytery in  order  to  consider  whether  to  take  from  him  in 
whole  or  in  part  the  external  call  given  him  in  ordination 
and  whether  it  shall  say,  so  far  as  its  authority  goes,  he 
can  no  longer  be  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  set  before  you  at  some  length 
the  nature  of  the  crime  of  heresy  and  what  is  involved 
in  its  penalty,  both  in  order  to  overcome  misapprehen- 
sions on  this  important  subject,  prevalent  among  the 
ministry,  but  also  in  order  to  get  a  basis  for  the  argument 
now  to  be  employed  against  the  entertainment  of  the 
Appeal.  A  much  more  fundamental  principle  is  now  at 
stake  than  any  principle  involved  in  the  questions  of 
law  or  of  doctrine  which  have  thus  far  been  debated  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs.  You  will  go  very  far  in  your  action 
upon  the  entertainment  of  this  Appeal  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  Question  for  yourselves  and  for  the 
Christian  public,  xvhether  the  Presbyterian  Church  regards 
itself  as  a  purely  voluntary  religious  society,  or  as  a  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ. 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A   VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  53 

(3).  It  is  a  well-known  maxim  of  civil  law  that : 
"  Nemo  debit  bis  vexari  pro  una  et  eadem  Causa." 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  were  directed  by  the 
General  Assembly  meeting  in  Portland  May  30,  1892, 

— "  to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  tiie 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to  per- 
mit the  prosecuting  committee  to  amend  the  specifications  and 
charges,  not  changmg  the  general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the 
furtherance  of  justice,  it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case 
may  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as 
speedily  as  may  be  practicable." 

The  Presbytery  complied  with  these  directions,  and 
after  a  long  and  patient  hearing  of  the  case,  in  nineteen 
sessions  extending  from  November  9,  1892,  until  Jan- 
uary 9,  1893,  128  ministers  and  elders  gave  their 
verdict  acquitting  Dr.  Briggs  of  all  the  charges  against 
him  by  majorities  ranging  from  six  to  twenty-four. 
According  to  the  above  maxim  of  civil  law  this  acquittal 
should  be  final.  This  maxim  is  a  resultant  of  the  expe- 
rience of  centuries  in  the  practice  of  civil  law.  Will  the 
Presbyterian  Church  act  in  violation  of  this  maxim  by 
entertaining  the  Appeal?  The  only  purpose  of  the 
Appeal  is  manifestly  to  reverse  the  verdict *of  acquittal. 
Will  the  General  Assembly  act  in  contravention  of  the 
common  law  of  Great  Britain  and  America  in  order  to 
accomplish  this  purpose?  Nothing  but  imperative 
reasons  could  justify  such  a  course. 

(4).  In  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  you 
will  find  the  provision  in  the  fifth  amendment : 

"  No  person  shall  izvice  be  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 
limb  for  the  same  offence T 

It  is  true  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  in  its 
ecclesiastical  courts  put  any  one  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 


54  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

limb.  It  cannot.  The  civil  law  reserves  such  penalties 
to  itself.  But  the  ecclesiastical  court  can  do  a  minister 
vastly  greater  injury  than  the  mutilation  of  his  limbs,  or 
the  depriving  him  of  his  physical  life.  It  may  mutilate 
his  ministry  by  suspension,  it  may  destroy  it  by  deposi- 
tion. The  law  of  Christian  discipleship  requires  A  man 
to  sacrifice  life  and  limb  for  Christ  and  His  Church. 
The  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  are  called  to  deny 
themselves,  take  up  their  cross  and  follow  Him,  They 
are  taught  to  expect  suffering,  persecution,  martyrdom 
for  His  sake.  There  may  be  in  our  ministry  unworthy 
men  who  regard  the  ministry  as  something  which  a  man 
may  exercise  or  not  at  his  convenience  or  pleasure.  It 
is  to  be  feared  that  there  are  those  who  make  the  minis- 
try a  mere  profession  or  means  of  livelihood.  Such  min- 
isters could  hardly  be  expected  to  take  a  serious  view  of 
the  solemn  obligations  of  the  ministerial  office  and  of 
the  higher  life  that  is  wrapt  up  in  it  to  the  men  called 
of  Jesus  Christ,  But  the  true  and  faithful  minister 
never  hesitates  to  sacrifice  his  life  itself  for  Christ's  sake. 
To  injure  a  minister  in  his  ministry  is  therefore  far 
more  cruel  to  him  than  to  cut  off  his  limbs.  To  depose 
him,  and  so  cut  ofT  his  ecclesiastical  life,  is  a  far  greater 
penalty  than  to  deprive  him  of  his  physical  life.  Will 
the  Presbyterian  Church  commit  an  act  of  cruelty  and 
wrong  worse  than  that  prohibited  in  the  constitution  of 
our  country?  If  you  entertain  this  Appeal  and  put  the 
defendant  a  second  time  in  jeopardy  of  his  ecclesiastical 
life  in  order  to  satisfy  the  unrighteous  demands  of  these 
prosecutors,  it  needs  no  prophet  to  tell  you  that  you 
will  yield  still  more  to  their  greed  and  do  worse  wrong 
than  that  which  the  constitution  of  our  great  Republic 
forbids. 

(5).  Ecclesiastical  law  differs  from  civil  law  in  some 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  55 

respects  and  allows  appeals  against  verdicts  of  acquittal, 
but  tvithin  certain  narrow  limits  which  it  is  necessary  to 
define.  Before  1821  no  distinction  was  made  between 
an  appeal  and  complaint.  Under  the  constitution  from 
1 82 1  to  1884  appeals  were  limited  to  judicial  cases. 
Under  the  new  Book  of  Discipline  they  are  still  further 
limited  to  final  judgments  in  judicial  cases  (94).  Prece- 
dents should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  these  changes 
in  the  law  of  appeals,  for  the  most  of  the  appeals  men- 
tioned in  the  Digests  of  Baird  and  of  Moore  would  not 
be  lawful  appeals  under  our  new  Book  of  Discipline, 
because  they  are  not  from  final  judgments. 

(6).  Appeals  were  defined  in  the  old  Book  of  Disci- 
pline until  1884  as  "the  removal  of  a  cause  already  de- 
cided, from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  judicatory,  by  a 
party  aggrieved."  Under  the  new  Book  of  Discipline, 
as  "  the  removal  of  a  judicial  case  by  written  represen- 
tation from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  judicatory,  and  may 
be  taken  by  either  of  the  original  parties,  from  the  Final 
Judgment  of  the  lower  judicatory."  (94.) 

Appeals  are  limited  to  original  parties  and  indeed 
aggrieved  parties.  It  is  true  that  the  adjective 
"  aggrieved  "  is  omitted  from  the  present  Book  of  Disci- 
pline and  "  original "  inserted  in  its  place.  But  the  rule 
that  there  must  be  a  grievance  although  not  stated 
should  still  be  regarded  as  binding,  for  it  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  in  all  law,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  and 
we  cannot  suppose  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  would 
undertake  to  supersede  it.  All  the  precedents  in  our 
courts,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  require  appeals  to  be 
made  by  aggrieved  parties.  This  General  Assembly 
will  hardly  venture  to  entertain  an  Appeal  from  a  party 
unless  they  can  convince  you  of  a  grievance.  And  that 
grievance    ought   to   be   very  great  to   justify   you   in 


5(3  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

reopening  the  question  of  the  guilt  of  a  minister  of  the 
sin  and  crime  of  heresy. 

(7).  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  appeal  of 
the  party  who  is  convicted  and  who  is  aggrieved  by 
a  sentence  which  imposes  penalties  upon  him.  Civil 
and  ecclesiastical  law  agree  in  this.  But  the  question  is 
wJiethcr  an  unsuccessful  prosecutor  has  the  right  of 
appeal. 

In  civil  law  where  parties  litigate  and  where  either 
party  may  suffer  grievance  from  the  final  judgment  of 
the  court,  either  party  may  appeal.  There  are  cases  in 
ecclesiastical  law  in  which  private  parties  may  litigate  on 
account  of  private  offences.  In  such  cases  either  party 
may  appeal  when  aggrieved.  The  Book  of  Discipline 
distinguishes  between  public  and  private  offences.  It 
prescribes  the  preliminary  steps  which  shall  be  taken  in 
both  classes  of  offences.  It  requires  that  in  private 
offences  "no  prosecution  shall  be  allowed  in  case  of 
alleged  personal  injury,  where  the  injured  party  is  the 
prosecutor,  unless  those  means  of  reconciliation  have 
been  tried  which  are  required  by  our  Lord  (Matthew 
xviii.  15-17)."  (8.)  But  "the  course  prescribed  by  the 
preceding  section  shall  not  be  required  when  the  prose- 
cution is  initiated  by  a  judicatory."  (9.)  The  case 
against  Lhe  defendant  is  not  a  case  of  litigation  between 
two  private  parties  where  a  private  offence  has  been  com- 
mitted. It  was  not  begun  in  the  method  prescribed  for 
private  offences.  The  case  relates  to  a  pubHc  offence 
and  the  prosecutor  is  a  public  prosecutor.  Therefore, 
there  can  be  no  question  of  a  grievance  of  individuals. 
TJie  only  grievance  which  can  be  argued  is  the  grievance 
of  public  prose cid  or s,  and  the  right  of  appeal  for  personal 
grievance  cannot  be  pleaded  by  them. 

(8).  In  ecclesiastical  law  private  prosecutors  are  allowed 


APPEAL  AGAINbT  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  57 

in  cases  of  ecclesiastical  crime.  This  is  in  accordance 
with  the  ancient  practice  in  criminal  law,  which  has  been 
done  away  with  in  modern  times.  In  ancient  law  the 
nearest  kinsman  was  the  prosecutor  and  the  avenger  of 
blood.  •  Private  wrongs  or  wrongs  to  the  clan  were  more 
emphasized  than  public  wrongs  or  wrongs  to  the  com- 
munity, and  therefore  where  the  crime,  according  to 
modern  views,  would  embrace  both  public  and  private 
wrong,  the  party  suffering  the  wrong  or  his  nearest  of 
kin  personally  conducted  the  process  against  the  wrong 
doer.  The  development  of  criminal  law  has  tended 
more  and  more  to  merge  the  private  offence  in  the  pub- 
lic until  the  private  wrong  has  been  well-nigh  submerged 
in  the  ocean  of  public  wrong.  The  seeking  of  redress 
by  individuals  has  been  shown  by  experience  to  be  pro- 
ductive of  bitterness  and  revenge  ever  increasing  between 
the  parties  and  their  friends  in  the  process  of  the  litiga- 
tion. Accordingly,  the  law  of  England  hedged  it  about 
more  and  more  limiting  it  to  felony  and  mayhem  and 
exposing  the  prosecutor  who  failed  in  his  charges  to 
heavy  damages  and  imprisonment ;  so  that  private  pro- 
cess became  more  and  more  infrequent  until  at  last  it  was 
abolished  by  law  soon  after  the  last  case  of  it  in  18 18. 

In  modern  criminal  law  the  prosecutor  must  always  be 
a  public  prosecutor  and  the  prosecution  be  conducted  in 
the  name  of  the  commonwealth.  Ecclesiastical  law 
lingers  behind  the  civil  law  in  its  development.  Private 
prosecutors  are  allowed  still  to  prosecute  in  ecclesiastical 
courts,  and  having  this  right  of  prosecution  they  may 
appeal  in  case  of  public  offences  if  they  have  been 
aggrieved  by  the  decision,  but  not  otherwise.  It  should 
be  observed  that  the  private  prosecutor  is  exposed  to  a 
penalty  in  case  of  a  failure  to  convict,  just  as  he  used  to 
be  in  the  civil  courts.     The  law  is : 


58  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  Any  person  who  appears  as  a  prosecutor,  without  appoint- 
ment by  the  judicatory,  shall  be  warned  before  the  charges  are 
presented,  that,  if  he  fail  to  show  probable  cause  for  the  charges, 
he  must  himself  be  censured,  as  a  slanderer  of  the  brethren,  in 
proportion  to  the  malignancy  or  rashness  which  may  appear  in 
the  prosecution."     (14.) 

Therefore,  if  the  private  prosecutor  fail  in  his  prosecu- 
tion he  may  suffer  a  grievance  and  so  have  the  right  of 
appeal.  Furthermore  it  is  assumed  that  in  all  cases  of 
private  prosecution  there  must  be  a  private  wrong  wrapt 
up  in  the  public  wrong.  The  prosecutor  must  shov/ 
some  personal  wrong  or  grievance  before  he  is  allowed 
to  prosecute  in  the  civil  courts.  The  ecclesiastical  courts 
are  governed  by  the  same  principle.  The  party  prose- 
cuting must  be  an  aggrieved  party  or  he  cannpt  lawfully 
prosecute.  It  may  be  conceded  that  private  prosecutors 
have  not  been  held  strictly  to  this  principle  in  the  courts 
of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church.  But  great  mis- 
chief has  resulted  from  the  neglect  of  this  rule.  And 
we  should  always  bear  in  mind  the  maxim  that  a  bad 
precedent  cannot  make  good  law.  Whatever  looseness 
there  may  have  been  in  the  interpretation  of  the  law  of 
grievance  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  yet  the  law  itself 
is  on  the  statute-books  that  there  must  be  a  grievance  mz 
there  can  be  no  appeal.  And  this  has  been  the  practice 
of  the  Ger^^ral  Assembly  as  well.  In  1874  an  appeal 
against  the  Synod  of  Illinois  South  was  dismissed  be- 
cause the  appellant  was  not  an  aggrieved  party.  (Min- 
utes, p.  62.) 

All  the  appeals  of  prosecutors  known  to  Presbyterian 
practice  are  of  private  prosecutors  and  these  were  required' 
to  show  that  they  were  aggrieved.     But  the  case  against 
the  defendant  was  not  conducted  by  a  private  prosecu- 
tor, and  therefore  no  one  is  entitle^  to  urge  any  such 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL     59 

precedents.  These  prosecutors  have  no  right  to  claim 
on  the  one  hand  the  grievance  of  a  private  prosecutor, 
and  on  the  other  hand  the  immunity  of  a  public  prose- 
cutor, and  shield  themselves  behind  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  against  a  counter 
action  for  slander. 

(9).  W/ien  the  commonwealth  is  the  prosecutor  in  a  crim- 
inal case,  no  appeal  is  laivful  in  behalf  of  the  prosecution. 
Even  when  justice  miscarries  an  appeal  is  forbidden.  As 
an  eminent  authority  says  : 

"If,  through  a  misdirection  of  the  judge  on  a  question  of  law, 
or  a  mistake  of  the  jury,  or  their  refusal  to  obey  the  instructions 
of  the  court,  or  any  other  like  cause,  a  verdict  of  acquittal  is 
improperly  rendered,  the  verdict  can  never  afterward,  on  the 
application  of  the  prosecutor,  in  any  form  of  proceeding,  be 
set  aside  and  a  new  trial  granted." 

And  again : 

"  A  statute  which  undertakes  to  give  to  the  State  the  right  of 
appeal,  to  retry  the  party  after  acquittal  on  a  valid  indictment,  is 
void.  And  no  writ  of  error,  or  other  proceeding,  allowed  to  the 
State,  can  constitutionally  open  anew  the  question  of  guilt,  after 
the  jeopardy  has  attached.  Even  though  an  acquittal  has  been 
produced  by  an  erroneous  direction  of  the  judge  at  the  trial  the 
result  is  the  same."     (Bishop  on  Criminal  Law,  993,  1026.) 

The  prosecution  in  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  has 
been  conducted  by  a  committee  of  Presbytery,  claiming 
to  be  a  committee  of  prosecution,  acting  in  the  name  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  Such  a  public  prosecutor  has  no  right  of 
appeal  by  any  statute  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
There  is  no  precedent  to  justify  such  an  appeal  in  the 
practice  of  Presbyterian  courts.  The  common  law  and 
the  practice  of  the  civil  courts  forbid  it.  Therefore  such 
an  appeal  is  without  Warrant  and  illegal.     The  General 


60 


ENTERTAINING   THE  APPEAL 


Assembly  cannot  entertain  it  without  a  violation  of  all 
law  and  all  precedent.  You  would  enter  into  conflict  with 
the  legal  experience  of  mankind.  You  would  do  the 
appellee  a  wrong  that  the  civil  courts  would  not  hesitate 
to  redress. 

(lo).  This  committee  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  -York  is 
not  an  aggrieved  party.  They  have  suffered  no  injury  by 
the  acquittal  of  Dr.  Briggs.  They  claim  to  be  public 
prosecutors,  not  individual  prosecutors.  Therefore  they 
have  suffered  no  personal  grievance.  If  there  has  been 
any  grievance  it  has  been  a  public  grievance  which  they 
suffer  only  vicariously.  If  they  feel  any  disappointment 
in  their  failure  to  convict  the  accused,  they  should  re- 
member that  they  were  not  appointed  to  convict,  but 
only  to  prepare  the  case  in  behalf  of  the  Presbytery 
subject  to  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery.  They  have 
fulfilled  the  task  assigned  them  and  they  should  acqui- 
esce in  the  result.  When  they  became  public  prose- 
cutors they  merged  personal  considerations.  To  appeal 
against  the  Presbytery  which  appointed  them  lays  them 
open  to  the  imputation  of  personal  animosity  in  the 
case  such  as  might  be  natural  even  if  wrong  in  a  pri- 
vate prosecutor,  but  which  is  both  unnatural  and  un- 
lawful in  a  pubhc  prosecutor.  The  Book  of  Discipline 
requires  that : 

"  Great  caution  ought  to  be  exercised  in  receiving  accusations 
from  any  person  who  is  known  to  indulge  a  malignant  spirit 
toward  the  accused,  or  who  is  not  of  good  character,  or  who  is 
himself  under  censure  or  process,  or  who  is  personally  interested 
in  any  respect  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused,  or  who  is  known 
to  be  litigious,  rash,  or  highly  imprudent."     (13.) 

If  such  a  law  is  necessary  in  the  case  of  a  private 
prosecutor,  how  much  more  does  it  warn  the  public 
prosecutor;  and  if  the  public  prosecutor  persist  in  an 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL     Ql 

appeal  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal  which  has  followed 
a  previous  dismissal  of  the  case,  notwithstanding  the 
Presbytery  which  appointed  them  advise  them  to  dis- 
continue litigation,  they  raise  the  question  whether  they 
may  not  have  such  "  malignant  spirit  "  and  such  "  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused  "  and  be 
so  "litigious,  rash,  or  highly  imprudent,"  that  they  may 
be  no  longer  competent  prosecutors :  and  whether  the 
General  Assembly  should  not  first  inquire  whether  their 
grievance  consists  in  any  other  thing  than  a  failure  to 
convict  Dr.  Briggs,  and  of  that  sense  of  wrong  which 
those  so  deeply  feel  who  are  causing  grievance  to  others. 
( II ).  T/iis  committee  of  Presbytery  do  not  give  any  other 
grounds  of  appeal  than  such  as  a  public  prosecutor  might 
give  til  a  case  of  criminal  law.  The  grounds  of  appeal 
are  "  irregularity  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery," 
"  receiving  improper  testimony,"  "  declining  to  receive 
important  testimony,"  "  manifestation  of  prejudice  in 
the  conduct  of  the  case,"  *' mistake  or  injustice  in  the 
decision."  Granting  for  the  moment  that  the  public 
prosecutor  could  establish  all  these  grounds  of  appeal 
and  all  their  specifications  :  it  is  not  lawful  to  discuss  at 
this  stage  whether  they  are  valid  or  not.  But  even  if 
they  should  be  all  valid,  yet  we  must  say,  while  these  are 
lawful  grounds  of  appeal  in  cases  of  private  offences 
and  of  questions  of  law  between  litigants — they  are  not 
valid  grounds  of  appeal  against  an  acquittal  of  heresy  by 
a  public  prosecutor.  The  civil  court  would  not  recog- 
nize such  mistakes  in  law,  or  alleged  injustice  of  the  de- 
cision as  grounds  for  appeal  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal. 
No  more  can  the  ecclesiastical  court  do  so.  If  such  alleged 
mistakes  in  law  do  not  invalidate  an  acquittal  in  a  civil 
court  and  justify  an  appeal,  how  can  they  have  a  differ- 
ent result  in  an  ecclesiastical  court   unless  there   is    a 


Q2  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

statute  law  plain  and  evident  to  justify  such  an  appeal? 
There  is  no  such  law.     There  is  no  such  precedent. 

(i2).  //  may  be  claimed  by  some  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  is  aggrieved  by  this  acquittal. 
But  who  shall  say  this  ?  The  public  prosecutors  ?  The  ap- 
pellants seem  to  think  that  they  are  suffering  grievance 
vicariously  for  the  Presbyterian  Church.  There  are  those 
who  encourage  them  in  this  opinion.  But  for  whom  do 
they  suffer  grievance  "^  Not  for  the  Presbytery  which 
appointed  them,  for  they  appeal  against  the  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery.  They  claim  that  they  sufTer 
grievance  by  that  final  judgment.  Not  for  the  Syjjjod  of 
New  York,  for  the  Synod  of  New  York  has  not  yet 
recognized  them  as  a  party  in  the  case.  Not  for  the 
General  Assembly,  for  the  General  Assembly  gave  them 
no  appointment,  gave  them  no  authority  to  act  as  its 
representatives.  For  whom,  then,  do  they  suffer  vicari- 
^ously?  They  say  for  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America — doubtless  thinking  that  the 
party  in  the  Church  which  is  pushing  them  on,  is  the 
majority  of  the  Church  and  is  the  Church.  Possibly 
they  may  be  correct  in  their  opinion  that  the  majority 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  feel  aggrieved  .by  the  verdict 
of  acquittal  against  which  they  appeal.  But  when  in 
civil  or  ecclesiastical  law  has  it  ever  been  allowed  for  the 
public  prosecutor  to  claim  that  he  must  appeal  because 
in  his  opinion  the  majority  of  the  people  were  aggrieved 
by  a  verdict  of  acquittal?  Such  a  thing  is  unknown  to 
law. 

The  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  has  been  tried  and  the. 
verdict  has  been  given  in  the  lawful  court  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. If  a  civil  court  had  acquitted  a  man  on  trial  for 
murder  it  would  be  no  ground  of  appeal,  that  the  com- 
monwealth  was   aggrieved    by   his  acquittal.     Possibly 


APPEAL   AGAINST   A  VERDICT   OF  ACQUITTAL  g3 

public  opinion,  often  ill-informed,  might  regard  the  ac- 
quittal as  injurious  to  the  commonwealth.  The  National 
Spy  might  by  its  private  detectives  have  so  investigated 
the  matter  as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  its 
readers  that  the  acquittal  was  a  great  mistake  and  an  en- 
couragement to  crime.  But  an  appeal  would  not  be 
valid  on  that  account.  Possibly  public,  opinion  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  excited  by  interested  parties  and 
warped  by  the  misrepresentations  of  partisan  religious 
jiewspapers,  may  feel  aggrieved  by  the  acquittal  of  Dr. 
Briggs  ;  but  no  law,  common  or  statute,  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical, recognizes  such  floating  and  undefined  public 
opinion  as  a  valid  reason  to  put  him  in  jeopardy  a 
second  time.  He  cannot  legally  be  tried  by  public  opin- 
ion, but  only  by  the  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  Presby- 
tery. He  cannot  be  convicted  because  public  opinion 
may  think  him  guilty.  His  guilt  must  be  proven  in 
court.  The  court  is  the  tribunal  to  determine  his  guilt 
or  innocence.  The  Presbytery  has  given  ita  verdict  tha^ 
Dr.  Briggs  is  innocent.  The  public  prosetutor  cannot 
plead  public  opinion  as  a  sufficient  reason  to  put  him 
in  jeopardy  again. 

(13).  It  may  be  urged  that  the  acquittal  not  only  de- 
termined that  the  defendant  is  innocent  of  the  crime 
of  heresy,  but  also  determines  questions  of  great  doctrinal 
and  constitutional  importance  zvhich  should  receive  their 
final  determination  only  from  the  supreme  court  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
But  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
does  not  and  cannot  finally  determine  such  questions 
of  doctrine  or  of  the  constitution.  It  simply  and  alone 
determines  that  the  defendant  is  innocent  of  the  specific 
charges  made  against  him.  The  decision  of  the  Pres- 
byter)' of  New  York  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  does  not 


g4  ENTERTAINING    THE   APPEAL 

bind  any  other  Presbytery ;  still  less  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  as  to  any  matters  of  doctrine  or  of  law.  An 
acquittal  does  not  determine  whether  his  doctrines  are 
right  or  not ;  but  only  that  he  is  not  personally  guilty 
of  heresy.  The  doctrines  of  Dr.  Briggs  stand  or  fall  by 
themselves,  without  any  endorsement  of  the, Presbytery, 
and  without  any  responsibility  of  the  Presbytery,  or 
the  Presbyterian  Church  for  them.  It  is  a  common 
mistake  that  the  Presbyterian^hurch  is  responsible  for 
all  doctrines  of  its  ministers.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
is  responsible  for  its  constitution  and  its  constitutional 
rules,  and  for  them  alone.  It  cannot  exact  more  of  its 
ministers.  It  cannot  be  responsible  for  anything  that 
they  may  say  or  do  which  is  not  in  accord  with  these 
rules.  That  is  the  law  and  usage  of  the  Church  and  the 
path  of  safety.  Any  other  path  leads  to  strife  and 
questions  -of  conscience  with  regard  to  every  expression 
of  opinion  and  every  detail  of  conduct. 

Ji  it  were  lawful  to  appeal  every  case  of  doctrine  and 
"fsew  brought  before  the  court  of  the  Presbytery,  it  would 
compel  the  General  Assembly  to  finally  determine  all 
these  doctrinal  and  legal  questions.  If  this  Appeal 
should  be  sustained  it  would  become  an  unfortunate 
precedent  which  would  be  followed  by  public  prose- 
cutors hereafter,  who  would  in  many  cases,  if  not  most 
cases,  magnify  their  office  and  bring  differences  of  opin- 
ion before  the  supreme  court  of  the  Church,  and  thus 
establish  a  new  and  easy  way  for  ambitious  litigants  to 
secure  authoritative  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  many  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  of  life  and  work, 
which  are  now  regarded  as  legitimate  matters  of  private 
opinion  ;  and  thus  imperil  the  constitution  by  an  unend- 
ing series  of  ^heresy  trials  and  resulting  changes  in  the 
doctrine  and  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


APPEAL   AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  <35 

Furthermore,  it  is  not  altogether  certain  that  the  de- 
cisions of  the  General  Assembly  sitting  as  a  court  in  a 
judicial  case  finally  determine  questions  of  doctrine  or 
morals  to  which  every  minister  is  bound  in  conscience 
to  submit.  It  is  possible  that  a  majority  of  the  General 
Assembly  might  make  an  unconstitutional  decision,  and 
that  there  might  be  a  series  of  decisions  of  questions  of 
doctrine  and  morals  in  contravention  of  the  doctrinal 
and  ecclesiastical  standards.  What  course  shall  a  synod, 
or  a  presbytery,  or  a  minister  pursue  in  such  a  case  ? 
They  may  be  justified  in  saying,  we  refuse  to  submit  to 
the  decisions  of  this  unrighteous  majority.  We  shall 
continue  to  maintain  our  constitutional  rights.  In  the 
next  heresy  trial  we  look  for  a  righteous  verdict.  As 
our  Confession  says : 

"  All  synods  or  councils  since  the  apostles'  times,  whether 
general  or  particular,  may  err  and  may  have  erred  ;  therefore 
they  are  not  to  be  made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice,  but  to  be 
used  as  a  help  in  both."     (XXXI.  3.) 

Unless  the  high  court  of  the  General  Assembly  act  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  forms  of  law. and  with  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  and  with  the  sacred  rights  of 
man  as  set  forth  in  Holy  Scripture  and  our  national 
constitution,  it  will  be  no  rebellion  if  the  minority  in 
the  Church  continue  the  struggle  against  unrighteous- 
ness and  wrong,  hoping  for  better  times.  The  General 
Assembly  cannot  lawfully  revise  or  amend  the  constitu- 
tion by  final  judgments  in  heresy  trials.  The  most  that 
you  can  do  is  to  cut  off  the  ecclesiastical  life  of  the  man 
on  trial,  and  raise  the  question  of  conscience  with  those 
who  sympathize  with  them,  whether  they  shall  protest 
against  the  injustice  and  share  his  fate,  or  whether  they 
shall  continue  the  battle  for  right  within  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  ,  ^ 


QQ  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

It  was  never  designed  that  trials  for  heresy  should  be 
the  means  of  securing  decisions  of  questions  of  doc- 
trines and  morals.  T/ie  coiirt  is  for  discipline,  not  for 
government ;  for  trials  of  law,  not  for  definitions  of 
faith  and  morals.  Trials  for  heresy  are  disciplinary  pro- 
cedures in  order  to  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  indi- 
viduals, not  to  determine  the  truth  or  error  of  proposi- 
tions. It  is  a  misfortune  if  the  General  Assembly  is 
required,  in  order  to  right  wrongs,  to  indirectly  decide 
questions  of  faith  ;  for  the  purpose  of  the  litigation  is  to 
right  wrongs  and  not  to  determine  doctrines.  If  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  denomination  and  parties 
are  divided  in  opinion  on  great  doctrines  of  faith,  the* 
Form  of  Government  prescribes  the  legal  method  for 
determining  the  questions,  i.  e.,  by  overtures  from  pres- 
byteries to  the  General  Assembly,  the  formulation  of 
statements  of  opinion  by  committees  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  then  the  submitting  of  these  statements 
of  opinion  to  the  presbyteries  for  their  decision.  If  a 
sufficient  number  of  presbyteries  adopt  these  state- 
ments of  opinion  they  justify  the  General  Assembly  in 
defining  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Then  those  who  can- 
not  subscribe  to  these  definitions  are  excluded  from  the 
Church  without  a  heresy  trial,  by  the  very  declaration 
of  these  definitions. 

The  public  prosecutors  are  pushing  the  Presbyterian 
Church  into  a  very  inconsistent  and  dangerous  position. 
They  are  endeavoring  to  secure  new  definitions  of 
dogma  by  final  judgments  in  a  heresy  trial,  when  they 
ought  to  aim  to  secure  them  by  overtures  in  accordance 
with  the  provision  of  the  Form  of  Government.  The 
Form  of  Government  prescribes  their  path,  not  the  Book 
of  Discipline. 

(14).   The  Presbytery  of  Nezv  York,  the  largest  Pre  shy- 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  (57 

tery  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  after  a  long  and  patient 
consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case,  gave  a  verdict  of 
acquittal.  Would  the  General  Assembly  be  willing  to 
give  the  same  amount  of  time  and  the  same  degree  of 
patience  to  the  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case, 
if  the  Appeal  should  be  entertained?  The  General  As- 
sembly is  composed  of  more  than  five  hundred  members^ 
from  all  parts  of  the  United  States.  Is  it  likely  that  so 
numerous  a  body  will  be  a  more  equitable  court  than 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York  ?  Let  any  one  consider 
the  situation  of  affairs  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  since 
the  process  was  begun  against  Dr.  Briggs  and  honestly 
ask  whether  the  General  Assembly  is  likely  to  be  in  a 
.more  judicial  frame  of  mind  than  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York.  If  the  General  Assembly  should  entertain  this 
Appeal  it  would  be  necessary  to  consider  the  merits  of 
the  case  with  the  utmost  care,  with  evident  impartiality, 
with  entire  freedom  from  party  prejudice  and  with  un- 
wearied patience  for  several  weeks ;  or  you  could  not 
win  public  confidence  in  your  justice,  or  public  respect 
for  your  decision.  If  you  override  all  the  provisions  of 
-tiie  constitution,  and  the  maxims  of  civil  law,  the  usages 
•qf  civil  and  ecclesiastical  courts  in  order  to  entertain  an 
Appeal  and  then  rush  to  a  hasty  decision  ;  you  will 
strike  a  deadly  blow  at  the  constitution  and  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

(15).  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  rendered  its  verdict 
of  acquittal  yiotwithstanding  very  great  pressure  upon  its 
members  to  vote  for  conviction.  It  is  necessary  briefly  to 
review  the  case.  January  20th,  1891,  Dr.  Briggs  deliv- 
ered his  Inaugural  Address  on  the  Authority  of  Holy 
Scripture,  in  the  chapel  of  the  Union  Theological  Sem- 
inary, New  York.  A  garbled  outline  of  that  Address 
was   published   in    many   of    the  religious  and   secular 


gg  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

newspapers  and  public  opinion  was  excited  against  it 
before  the  Address  was  published.  April  i8th,  1891,  on 
motion  of  Dr.  Birch,  by  authority  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  the  Moderator,  Dr.  Shearer,  appointed  a 
committee  to  consider  the  Inaugural  Address  and  to  re- 
port at  the  meeting  in  May.  This  action  was  taken  against 
Dr.  Briggs  in  his  absence.  He  was  confined  to  his 
house  by  illness.  He  had  no  warning  of  the  proposed 
motion.  This  action  was  therefore  in  violation  of  the 
law  of  the  Church  "  that  no  discussion  ought  to  be 
allowed  involving  the  character  of  an  absent  person  in 
his  absence."  Against  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  Dr. 
Briggs  protested  at  the  meeting  in  May,  that  it  was  un- 
lawful and  without  precedent.  At  the  same  meeting 
the  majority  of  the  committee  reported  recommending 
"  that  the  Presbytery  enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial 
investigation  of  the  case."  This  report  was  adopted 
and  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Moderator,  Dr. 
Shearer,  consisting  of  the  majority  of  the  former  com- 
mittee, to  "  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceed- 
ings appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs."  Against 
this  action  Dr.  Briggs  gave  notice  of  protest  and  com- 
plaint to  Synod,  but  subsequently  withdrew  this  com- 
plaint in  order  that  there  might  be  no  delay  in  the 
advance  toward  judicial  proceedings.  Thus  far  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  acted  unfairly  towards  the  defend- 
ant. It  gave  him  no  opportunity  to  explain  his  Inau- 
gural Address  or  of  giving  satisfaction  to  the  Presby- 
tery. 

The  directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary 
undertook  to  satisfy  themselves  and  to  remove  the 
public  prejudice,  by  securing  from  Dr.  Briggs  categorical 
answers  to  eight  questions  embracing  the  chief  points  at 
issue.     This   was   published   by   the   authority   of    the 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  (39 

directors.  But  the  General  Assembly  at  Detroit  in 
May,  1 891,  notwithstanding  these  categorical  answers, 
undertook  to  veto  the  transfer  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the 
chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  Several  of  the  prosecutors 
took  part  in  the  act  of  veto  and  used  their  personal 
influence  in  its  behalf;  and  then  returned  to  New  York 
and,  with  the  other  members  of  the  committee  "  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings,"  blos- 
somed out  into  a  prosecuting  committee,  by  their  own 
inherent  energy.  Under  the  increased  impetus  of  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Detroit,  the  Presby- 
tery suffered  them  to  table  charges  against  Dr.  Briggs, 
October  5,  1891,  and  cited  him  to  answer  and  plead  to 
them.  It  refused  to  dismiss  the  case.  On  November  4, 
1891,  he  appeared  and  filed  objections  against  "the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and 
legal  effect."  The  Presbytery  thereupon  dismissed  the 
case  against  him  by  a  vote  of  94  to  39.  Up  to  this  dis- 
missal in  every  vote  the  presbytery  had  been  adverse  to 
the  defendant.  The  dismissal  was  made  after  hearing 
his  Demurrer,  notwithstanding  the  veto  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  the  previous  adverse  votes  of  the  Presby- 
tery. 

In  April,  1892,  the  adverse  influence  in  the  Presbytery 
against  Dr.  Briggs  reasserted  itself  in  the  vote  which 
sent  to  the  General  Assembly  at  Portland  four  members 
of  the  committee  which  had  been  prosecuting  him  and 
eight  other  friends  of  the  prosecution  out  of  a  total  of 
fourteen  commissioners.  The  General  Assembly  at 
Portland  sustained  the  Appeal  against  the  decision  of 
the  Presbytery  and  ordered  a  ne\i^trial. 

The  Presbytery  met  on  November  9,  1892,  under  the 
influence  of  this  unfavorable  action  of  the  General  As- 
sembly at  Portland,  overcame  the  preliminary  objection 


fjQ  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

of  Dr.  Briggs,  refused  to  hear  his  argument  on  the  prelim- 
inary objection  and  allowed  the  committee  to  table  new 
charges.  The  defendant  on  November  28,  1892,  made 
preliminary  objections  to  the  Amended  Charges  showing 
that  they  were  insufificient  in  form  and  legal  effect, 
insisting  upon  several  of  these  objections,  but  waiving 
his  objections  to  six  of  the  charges  under  certain  condi- 
tions accepted  by  the  Presbytery,  in  order  to  go  to  trial 
in  accordance  with  the  directions  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. If  the  defendant  had  appeared  before  the  Presby- 
tery under  more  favorable  circumstances  and  had  not 
been  confronted  by  the  adverse  decisions  of  the  General 
Assemblies  at  Detroit  and  at  Portland,  he  would  have 
claimed  as  his  right  that  these  six  charges  should  be 
dismissed  as  insufificient  in  form  and  legal  effect.  As  it 
was,  he  personally  waived  his  objections  to  them  under 
certain  conditions,  and  threw  the  responsibility  upon  the 
Presbytery  whether  they  were  ready  to  go  to  trial  on 
illegal  and  invalid  charges. 

Notwithstanding  the  concessions  made  by  the  defend- 
ant the  Presbytery  overcame  several  of  his  preliminary 
objections  upon  which  he  took  his  stand,  forced  him  to 
make  several  complaints  to  the  Synod  of  New  York  and 
then  proceeded  to  trial.  The  defendant  felt  deeply  the 
disadvantage  of  the  situation,  and  yet  after  the  full  hear- 
ing accorded  to  both  parties,  during  which  the  court  in 
every  way  favored  the  committee  of  prosecution  and 
even  allowed  them  to  act  in  defiance  of  the  rulings  of 
the  Presbytery  so  as  to  argue  on  two  of  the  charges 
which  had  been  thrown  out,  and  to  review  the  whole 
case  and  introduce  new  matter  under  the  guise  of  rebut- 
tal ;  the  court  acquitted  him  on  all  the  charges  by 
majorities  ranging  from  six  to  twenty-four.  Under 
these  circumstances   of   a   dismissal    in    1891     and    an 


APPEAL  AGAINST  A  VERDICT  OF  ACQUITTAL  71 

acquittal  in  1892,  by  a  court  which  showed  so  evidently, 
to  say  the  least,  that  they  were  not  biased  in  favor  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  and  which  was  under  the  external  pressure 
of  the  unfavorable  action  of  two  General  Assemblies, 
and  which  was  compelled  to  acquit  him  by  the  evidence 
in  the  case ;  is  it  equitable  to  put  the  defendant  in 
jeopardy  again  for  the  offences  charged  against  him  ? 
No  civil  court  could  do  such  a  wrong.  It  would  he  a 
new  and  an  iniquitous  precedent  in  an  ecclesiastical 
court.  The  civil  courts  might  feel  compelled  in  the  in- 
terests of  equity  to  interpose. 


The  General  Assembly  cannot  entertain  this  Appeal 
tvithout  doing  violence  to  the  sense  of  right  which  is  exhib- 
ited in  the  constitution  of  our  coimtry,  in  the  maxims  of 
common  law,  in  the  statutes  of  our  commomvealth,  and  in 
the  practice  of  our  civil  courts  ;  without  establishing  an 
entirely  new  and  dangerotis  precedent  in  ecclesiastical 
law ;  zvithout  doing  grave  injtistice  to  the  defendant  and 
to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York ;  and  without  under- 
minitig  public  confidence  in  the  equity  of  Presbyterian 
discipline. 

This  is  too  heavy  a  cost  to  pay  for  the  sake  of  secur- 
ing a  condemnation  of  one  man,  however  objectionable 
he  may  be.  This  is  too  great  a  strain  to  put  upon  our 
constitution,  in  order  to  gain  a  decision  on  questions  of 
doctrine  which  may  be  more  clearly  and  satisfactorily 
defined  by  a  procedure  prescribed  in  the  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment. The  common  law  lays  down  this  fundamental 
principle  which  applies  to  this  case,  if  to  any : 

"  It  is  for  the  public  good  that  there  be  an  end  to  litiga- 
tion ^ 


fj2  .    ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

III. — PENDING  THE  COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK 
ON  THE  QUESTION  WHETHER  THE  APPELLANTS  ARE  AN 
ORIGINAL  PARTY  AND  BEFORE  THE  DETERMINATION  BY 
THE  SYNOD  OF  THAT  QUESTION  THIS  ASSEMBLY  CANNOT 
ENTERTAIN    THE   PRESENT    APPEAL. 

The  General  Assembly  meeting  at  Portland  while  con- 
sidering the  question  of  the  entertainment  of  the  Ap- 
peal against  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  dismissing 
the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs,  were  informed  by  the  appel- 
lee on  May  26th,  1892,  that  a  complaint  was  pending  be- 
fore the  Synod  of  New  York  against  the  decision  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  Nov.  4th,  1891,  in  sustaining 
by  a  vote  of  64  to  57  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  as 
follows : 

'"I.  That  the  committee  which  preferred  charges  against  Dr. 
Briggs  (presented  to  Presbytery  Oct.  5th,  1891),  was  a  committee 
of  prosecution  under  section  11  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline ; 

"  '  2.  That  the  committee  was  in  the  house  on  the  day  on  which 
the  citation  was  returnable  (Nov.  4th,  1891,  as  aforesaid),  as  an 
original  party ; 

"  '  3.  That  the  committee  as  an  original  party,  was  virtually  and 
practically  independent  of  the  Presbytery.' 

"  This  Complaint  bears  the  signature  of  1 14  ministers  and  elders 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

"  According  to  the  Book  of  Discipline  (83),  'a  complaint  is  a 
written  representation,  made  to  the  next  superior  judicatory.' 
A  complaint  cannot  be  earned  from  the  Presbytery  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  Therefore  the  only  redress  the  defendant  had 
against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in  these  important  matters 
was  by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York.  This  Complaint 
involves  the  very  existence  of  this  committee  which  has  ap- 
pealed ;  whether  they  were  appointed  as  a  prosecuting  commit- 
tee, whether  they  are  an  original  party,  whether  they  have  any 
right  to  act  independent  of  the  Presbytery,  and  against  the  Pres- 
bytery. If  the  Synod  should  decide  any  of  these  questions  in 
accordance  with  the  views  of  the  complainants,  the  appellants 


ARE  THE   APPELLANTS  AN   ORIGINAL   PARTY?  73 

would  have  no  present  right  of  appeal,  and  could  not  therefore 
appear  before  you  as  appellants  at  this  time.  The  defendant 
does  not  raise  those  objections  here,  because  they  go  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York  for  its  decision,  and  he  reserves  the  right 
with  others,  his  co-complainants,  to  argue  these  questions  before 
the  Synod  of  New  York." 

The  General  Assembly  at  Portland  after  hearing  this 
statement  of  reservation,  adopted  the  report  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  judicial  committee  that  the  Appeal  was  in 
order  and  that  the  Appeal  should  be  entertained  and  a 
time  set  for  hearing  the  case.  But  they  refrained  from 
adopting  the  report  of  the  committee  as  a  whole,  or  that 
part  of  the  report  which  recognized  the  appellants  as  a 
committee  of  prosecution  and  an  original  party.  The 
part  of  the  report  not  adopted  is  as  follows : 

— "that,  in  the  opinion  of  this  committee  the  Appeal  taken  by 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  an 
original  party,  represented  by  the  'Committee  of  Prosecution,' 
appointed  under  section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  has  been 
taken  from  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing 
the  case  ;  and  that  the  said  committee  had  the  right  to  take  this 
Appeal  representing  the  said  original  party." 

The  reasons  for  not  adopting  this  part  of  the  Report 
of  the  Judicial  Committee,  were  doubtless  that,  (i)  the 
appellants  had  not  asked  the  Assembly  to  decide  that 
question,  and  (2)  the  appellee  had  distinctly  reserved  it 
for  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  in  the 
Complaint  pending  before  the  Synod ;  and  (3)  the  As- 
sembly desired  to  avoid  any  possible  conflict  of  jurisdic- 
tion between  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Synod  of 
New  York. 

The  appellee  was  so  extremely  careful  to  reserve  this 
question  of  parties  for  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  that  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  argument  against 
sustaining  the  Appeal  he  said  : 


74  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  The  appellee  is  now  called  upon  to  resist  the  Appeal  made 
to  your  venerable  body  by  the  alleged  Prosecuting  Committee  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  You  have  decided  to  entertain  the 
appeal  despite  my  protest  and  reservation  of  rights.  It  is  now- 
necessary  for  me,  before  going  a  step  further,  to  say  that  I  do 
not  consent  to  your  decision.  I  do  not  waive  my  right,  or  the 
right  of  my  co-complainants,  to  prosecute  our  complaint  before 
the  Synod  of  New  York,  in  order  that  it  may  be  determined  there 
whether  the  appellants  were  appomted  as  a  Committee  of  Prose- 
cution by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  whether  they  are  an 
original  party,  and  whether  they  can  act  as  appellants  against  the 
decision  of  the  Presbytery  to  dismiss  the  case.  We  reserve  this 
right.  The  appellee  does  not  waive  his  right  to  seek  any  relief 
that  may  seem  to  be  proper  against  your  decision  to  entertain 
the  appeal.  He  enters  upon  his  response  to  the  objections  of 
the  appellants  with  all  these  reservations  of  right."  • 

It  is  argued  by  the  prosecutors  that  the  Assembly  by 
entertaining  the  Appeal  implicitly  recognized  them  as 
parties.  But  this  is  not  true.  They  recognized  them  as 
prima  facie  a  party  whose  right  was  not  questioned  before 
them ;  but  they  did  not  undertake  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion whether  they  were  real  parties,  which  question  was 
reserved  for  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

It  is  evident  that  the  General  Assembly  reserved  its 
opinion  on  this  question  of  the  right  of  a  public  prose- 
cutor to  appeal  as  an  original  party,  for  it  was  brought 
up  before  the  Assembly  by  an  overture  from  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cayuga : 

— "asking  that  an  interpretation  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  be 
given  which  shall  cover  the  points  at  issue : 

"First. — The  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not 
less  just  or  less  enlightened  than  that  of  the  United  States. 
Hence  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  fifth  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  the  words,  'Nor  shall  any 
person  be  subject  for  the  same  offence  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy 
of  life  or  limb,'  is  applicable  in  all  prosecutions  initiated  by  any 
judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL   PARTY?  75 

"  Sccofid.~ln  the  Presbyterian  Church  a  prosecution  may  be 
initiated  either  by  a  private  prosecutor  or  by  a  church  judicatory. 
In  the  latter  case,  if  the  judicatory  disposes  of  the  matter  with- 
out convicting  the  accused,  he  ought  not  for  the  same  offense  to 
be  again  put  in  jeopardy  of  ecclesiastical  penalties.  Especially  is 
it  absurd  to  hold  that  a  judicatory  has  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
an  accused  person  a  second  tmie  in  jeopardy  the  right  to  appeal 
from  its  own  decision.  And  certainly  a  right  which  it  never  pos- 
sessed it  cannot  delegate  to  any  person  or  committee. 

"  Third.— \i  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  does  not  forbid  such  violations  of  the  rights  of  men 
as  are  recognized  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
among  all  civilized  nations,  at  least  it  does  not  require  them,  and 
the  judicatories  of  the  Church  may  exclude  them,  and  ought  to 
exclude  them. 

" Fourth.— 'Y)\&x&  is  no  necessity  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
for  giving  the  right  of  Appeal  to  a  public  prosecutor  in  defiance 
of  the  enlightened  judgment  of  mankind ,  for  the  rights  of  an 
unsuccessful  prosecutor  are  abundantly  protected  by  other  pro- 
visions in  our  constitution.  As  the  prosecution  of  offenses  is 
often  a  thankless  task,  undertaken  for  the  public  good,  those 
who  undertake  it  should  be  amply  protected.  But  it  is  equally 
true  that  all  persons  should  be  protected  from  unreasonable 
prosecutions,  and  that  members  of  judicatories  should  be  pro- 
tected from  being  compelled  needlessly  to  give  their  time  to  ec- 
clesiastical trials." 

This  overture  was  referred  to  the  same  judicial  com- 
mittee which  had  reported  that  the  Appeal  in  the  Briggs 
case  was  in  order.  Their  report  was  made  subsequent 
to  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  the  Briggs  case  and 
in  the  light  of  it.  Nevertheless  the  Assembly  adopted 
as  its  reply  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee,  viz.  : 
"  that  as  the  subjects  referred  to  are  presented  in  thesz, 
it  is  inexpedient  for  the  Assembly  to  make  any  answer." 
(Minutes,  p.  23.) 

It  has  also  been  argued  that  the  Protest  signed  by  Dr. 
McPherson  and  some  53  others  implies  that  the  General 


76  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Assembly  decided  the  question  whether  the  appellants 
were  an  original  party.  This  is  the  language  of  the  Pro- 
test: 

"  We,  the  undersigned,  ministers  and  elders,  commissioners  of 
the  104th  General  Assembly,  do  hereby  enter  and  record  our  pro- 
test against  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  entertaining 
the  appeal  in  the  case  of  '  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Rev,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,'  and 
so  givmg  to  the  committee  which  preferred  the  charges  against 
Dr.  Briggs,  standing  before  the  Assembly  and  right  of  appeal  as 
an  '  original  party,'  beyond  the  control  of  the  Presbytery  and  its 
power  to  discharge  them  when  dismissing  the  case." 

But  what  answer  did  the  Assembly  give  to  the  Pro- 
test ?  No  answer.  The  Assembly  was  non-committal. 
Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  moderator  was  au- 
thorized to  appoint  a  committee  to  answer  the  Protest, 
the  Protest  was  "  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the  Minutes 
of  the  Assembly  without  answer,"     (Minutes,  p,  25.) 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  the  Assembly  declined  to  de- 
cide the  question  whether  the  committee  was  an  original 
party,  (i)  They  declined  to  determine  the  question  in 
face  of  the  reservation  by  the  appellee  of  his  own  rights, 
of  the  rights  of  his  co-complainants,  of  the  rights  of  his 
Presbytery,  and  of  the  rights  of  his  Synod;  (2)  they  de- 
clined to  answer  the  question  when  it  was  raised  before 
them  a  second  time  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cayuga ;  (3) 
they  declined  to  answer  the  question  when  it  was  forced 
upon  them  .the  third  time  by  a  protest  of  54  commis- 
sioners of  the  Assembly.  They  wisely  and  persistently 
declined  to  answer  the  questioti  because  they  saw  clearly 
that  they  would  thereby  be  involved  in  an  inevitable  con-- 
flict  of  jurisdiction  with  the  Syfiod  of  New  York. 

(2).  This  question  of  the  original  party  is  not  a  merely  tech- 
nical question,  but  one  of  the  most  important  that  has  ever 
been  brought  before  a  judicatory,  one  which  has  far-reach- 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  77 

ing  consequences,  affecting  the  rights  of  every  judi- 
catory, every  ofifice-bearer,  and  every  communicant  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  necessary  that  you 
should  patiently  consider  the  question  in  its  historical 
evolution  in  connection  with  this  case. 

April  i8th,  1891,  on  motion  of  Dr.  Birch,  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  consider  "  the  Inaugural  Address  of 
the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in  its  relation  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith."  The  majority  of  this  committee 
reported  May  nth,  recommending  "  that  the  Presbytery 
enter  at  once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the  case." 
This  report  was  adopted.  Then,  on  motion  of  Dr.  Shi- 
land,  a  committee  was  appointed  "  to  arrange  and  pre- 
pare the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Briggs."  This  is  the  authority  on  which  the 
prosecution  act.  This  is  the  basis  on  which  all  their 
claims  rest  to  be  a  prosecuting  committee,  an  original 
party,  independent  of  the  Presbytery  and  representing 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
Certainly  one  finds  none  of  these  things  in  the  terms  of 
their  appointment.  There  is  not  a  word  about  their  be- 
ing a  prosecuting  committee.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  They  were  a  committee  of  Presbytery,  to 
arrange  and  prepare  something  which  they  were  to  re- 
port to  the  Presbytery.  They  were  given  discretion  as 
to  what  might  be  necessary  and  what  might  be  appro- 
priate to  report.  But  the  Presbytery  did  not  endow  the 
committee  with  plenary  power  to  determine  of  them- 
selves without  regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  Presbytery 
what  was  appropriate  and  what  was  necessary. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  Presbytery  had  no  alternative 
than  to  appoint  a  prosecuting  committee  according  to  the 
Book  of  Discipline  which  prescribes : 


78  ENTERTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

"  When  the  prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  judicatory,  it  shall 
appoint  one  or  more  of  its  own  members  a  Committee  to  con- 
duct the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  judicatory,  until 
the  final  issue  be  reached."  (ii.) 

If  the  Presbytery  had  determined  to  initiate  prosecu- 
tion by  the  judicatory,  certainly  it  was  required  by  law 
to  appoint  such  a  prosecuting  committee.  But  the 
Presbytery  may  have  disobeyed  the  law  and  so  made 
themselves  liable  to  censure.  It  does  not  follow  be- 
cause there  is  such  a  law  that  the  Presbytery  must  cer- 
tainly have  obeyed  it.  The  terms  of  the  appointment 
of  this  committee  show  no  recognition  of  such  a  law 
either  in  the  matter  or  form  of  their  appointment. 

But  there  is  no  stifficient  evidence  to  show  that  the  Pres- 
bytery had  reached  the  point  ivhen  they  had  decided  to  in- 
itiate proceedings  by  the  Judicatory,  (a)  The  mover  of 
the  resolution  which  appointed  the  committee  signed 
the  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York  in  which  he 
says  with  113  other  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  that  this  committee  was  not  appointed 
as  a  prosecuting  committee,  {b)  The  Presbytery,  May 
1 1,  were  confronted  by  a  protest  and  a  complaint  to  Synod 
made  by  Dr.  Briggs  against  their  preliminary  action,  and 
it  was  not  clear  what  might  be  the  necessary  and  appro- 
priate proceedings  in  view  of  that  complaint  and  protest. 
It  might  be  best  for  the  Presbytery  to  postpone  further 
proceedings  until  the  Synod  had  decided  upon  this  Com- 
plaint against,  its  preliminary  procedure,  {c)  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  had  not  yet  met,  and  the  Presbytery  could 
not  know  what  proceedings  the  General  Assembly  would 
direct,  after  giving  its  advice  upon  the  numerous  over- 
tures coming  before  them  with  regard  to  the  Inaugural 
of  Dr.  Briggs.  {d)  The  chairman  of  the  committee,  Dr. 
Birch,  said  himself  on  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  that  it 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN   ORIGINAL   PARTY?  ^9 

might  be  necessary  for  him  to  act  as  an  individual  pros- 
ecutor in  the  case.  {/)  The  Rev.  Dr.  Sample,  a  member 
of  the  committee,  called  upon  Dr.  Briggs  and  privately 
requested  him  to  appear  before  the  committee  and  make 
statements  and  explanations  so  as  to  obviate  the  neces- 
sity of  tabling  charges.  This  was  an  act  of  kindness  and 
Christian  courtesy  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Sample  which  he 
,  could  not  have  undertaken  if  he  supposed  that  he  be- 
longed to  a  prosecuting  committee  appointed  after  the 
Presbytery  had  determined  to  initiate  procedure.  In 
fact  it  was  not  clear  to  the  Presbytery  and  they  could 
not  know  when  this  committee  was  appointed,  what  pro- 
ceeding would  be  necessary  or  appropriate  in  the  case  of 
Dr.  Briggs. 

Let  the  appellee  tell  you  what  proceedings  seemed  to 
Dr.  Briggs  necessary  and  appropriate  under  the  circum- 
stances which  emerged  after  the  General  Assembly  at 
Detroit  undertook  to  veto  his  transfer  to  the  Edward 
Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  This  committee 
should  have  considered  (i)  whether  it  was  appropriate  or 
necessary  that  the  judical  investigation  should  be  con- 
ducted by  a  trial  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery ;  or 
v/hether  the  investigation  had  not  some  preliminary 
steps  to  take  before  a  trial  was  necessary  or  even  legal ; 
whether  it  was  not  first  necessary  "  by  private  conference 
luith  the  accused,  to  avoid,  if  possible,  the  necessity  of  actual 
process^'  (9).  This  was  in  the  mind  of  Dr.  Sample  and 
other  members  of  the  Presbytery. 

(2).  Whether  the  accused  ought  not  first  to  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  give  satisfaction  to  Jus  bretJiren  in  open  Pres- 
bytery. This  Dr.  Briggs  has  always  claimed  as  his  right 
and  has  repeatedly  protested  that  it  was  taken  from  him. 

(3).  Whether  it  was  not  better  to  "  wait  until  God  in 
his  righteous  providence  should  give  further  light,  than 


go  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

by  unavailing  prosecution  to  weaken  the  force  of  dis- 
cipline." 

(4).  If  the  committee  had  considered  these  prelimi- 
nary questions  it  might  then  have  recommended  to  the 
Presbytery  that  the  necessary  and  appropriate  proceed- 
ings were  to  proceed  to  a  judicial  investigation  in  the 
form  of  a  trial  for  heresy. 

(5).  The  committee  had  also  to  determine  whether 
the  doubt  in  their  chairman's  mind  should  be  resolved, 
and  if  a  trial  was  to  be  undertaken  whether  it  should  be 
initiated  by  the  judicatory,  or  whether  Dr.  Birch  him- 
self should  undertake  it  as  an  individual  prosecutor.  It 
was  for  them  to  recommend  if  they  thought  wise,  that 
process  should  be  initiated  by  the  judicatory  and  that  a 
prosecuting  committee  should  be  appointed. 

(6).  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  committee  had  the 
right  to  prepare  and  table  charges.  The  defendant  has 
never  challenged  their  right  to  do  this,  because  so  much 
was  left  to  their  discretion  in  the  ambiguous  terms  of 
their  appointment.  But  it  was  certainly  optional  with 
them  whether  they  should  table  charges  or  not. 

Thus  this  committee  appointed  to  "  arrange  and  pre- 
pare the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  to  the  case 
of  Dr.  Briggs "  had  a  sufficiently  responsible  task  in 
the  terms  of  their  appointment.  It  was  within  their 
right  to  recommend,  (i)  that  the  Presbytery  go  to  trial. 
(2)  That  the  Presbytery .  initiate  process.  (3)  That  a 
prosecuting  .committee  be  appointed.  (4)  That  the 
charges  which  they  had  prepared  be  served  upon  the 
accused. 

Instead  of  limiting  themselves  to  these  their  legiti- 
mate functions,  they  took  all  these  things  for  granted, 
they  set  up  the  claim  to  be  themselves  the  prosecuting 
committee,  an  original  party  representing  the  Presby- 


ARE   THE  APPELLANTS   AN   ORIGINAL  PARTY?  gl 

terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  they 
insisted  that  the  Presbytery  had  no  option  in  the  mat- 
ter but  to  take  the  decisions  of  this  committee  on  these 
preliminary  matters  as  final,  and  go  on  with  the  trial  in 
all  its  stages,  in  any  way  and  before  any  court  that  this 
committee  in  its  extraordinary  power  and  wisdom  might 
determine. 

These  extravagant  claims  of  this  committee  of  the 
Presbytery  first  appeared  on  October  5,  1891,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  printed  report  of  the  committee  and  their 
spoken  words  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery  by  Dr. 
Birch  and  Mr.  McCook,  but  these  claims  were  at  once 
denied  by  Dr.  Thompson,  who  said  : 

"  From  the  reading  of  the  Book  it  seems  that  we  have  no 
committee  of  prosecution  yet.  The  committee  was  appointed 
to  arrange  and  prepare  the  papers ;  it  was  not  called  a  commit- 
tee of  prosecution.  The  committee  of  prosecution  is  to  conduct 
the  matter  through  every  stage.  Nothing  of  the  kind  is  ex- 
pressed or  implied  in  the  record  of  the  Minutes." 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  also  urged  that  the  committee  was  not 
a  party  as  against  Dr.  Briggs,  but  that  the  matter  was 
between  the  Presbytery  and  Dr.  Briggs. 

Dr.  Shiland  said : 

*'  If  Dr.  Briggs  will  answer  the  questions  here,  through  the 
Moderator,  that  he  answered  to  the  directors  of  the  Seminary, 
1  do  not  see  any  reason  why  we  should  go  on  with  this  trial." 

Dr.  Alexander  said : 

"  I  do  wish  that  this  should  be  before  the  Presbytery  so  that 
we  shall  not  be  pressed  into  a  judicial  proceeding,  into  a 
trial,  without  the  opportunity  of  saying  whether  in  view  of  all 
the  light  now,  we  want  to  go  into  it,  or  whether  we  want  to 
pause  right  here." 

Dr.  Alexander  moved  that, 
— "  the  Presbytery,  without  pronouncing  on  the  sufficiency  of 
these  latter  declarations  to  cover  all  the  points  concerning  which 


82  ENTERTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

the  accused  had  been  called  in  question,  deems  it  expedient  to  ar- 
rest the  judicial  proceedings  and  hereby  discharges  the  commit- 
tee from  further  consideration  of  the  case." 

Dr.  John  Hall  moved  an  amendment  that : 

"The  Presbytery  receive  the  report  of  the  committee  and 
recognize  the  diligence  and  conscientiousness  of  the  committee  ; 
that  in  view  of  the  disclaimers  of  distinct  errors  made  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  subsequent  to  the  publication  of  the  inaugural,  the  Pres- 
bytery relieves  the  committee  from  its  work,  and  at  the  same 
time  expresses  its  disapproval  of  the  injudicious  and  misleading 
language  of  the  inaugural,  of  the  spirit  in  which  some  parts  of 
it  are  presented,  and  of  the  suggestion  of  inference  against  the 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  enjoin  on  Dr.  Briggs,  their 
brother  and  co-presbyter,  that  such  methods  be  not  pursued  by 
him  in  his  place  as  professor." 

Dr.  Hall's  amendment  was  supported  by  Dr.  Schauf- 
fler  and  many  others.  Both  of  these  motions  were  en- 
tertained by  the  moderator ;  both  of  them  imply  that 
the  claims  of  the  committee  were  not  recognized  by 
their  movers,  by  their  supporters,  or  by  the  Moderator. 
Dr.  Hall's  amendment  was  put  and  lost.  Dr.  Alex- 
ander's motion  was  lost  by  64  to  62.  But  as  Dr.  Hall, 
Dr.  Schauffler  and  many  others  voted  against  Dr.  Alex- 
ander's resolution,  it  is  evident  that  the  majority  of  the 
Presbytery,  with  the  moderator  at  their  head,  did  not 
recognize  the  claim  of  the  committee  to  be  an  original 
party  on  October  9,  1891. 

The  Presbytery  by  a  majority  of  two  allowed  the  com- 
mittee to  table  charges  and  they  were  served  upon  Dr. 
Briggs.  Before  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in 
November,  the  Synod  of  New  York  met  and  approved 
the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  containing  the  report  of 
the  committee  and  the  recognition  of  them  as  the  pros- 
ecuting committee  on  the  minutes.  It  is  claimed  by 
the  prosecution  that  the  approval  of  the  minutes  debars 


ARK  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  y3 

further  objection.  But  this  is  invalid  for  the  reason 
that  the  General  Assembly  has  decided  in  1879  ^^^^  • 

•'  The  constituted  right  of  appeal,  '  either  from  a  part  of  the 
proceedings  of  a  judicatory  or  from  a  definitive  sentence,'  and 
the  right  of  complaint  '  respecting  a  decision  by  an  inferior  judi- 
catory,' '  either  before  its  rising  or  within  ten  days  thereafter," 
cannot  be  in  any  way  afifected  by  the  approval  of  the  Minutes  of 
the  judicatory  against  the  action  of  which  the  appeal  or  com- 
plaint may  be  taken."     (Minutes,  p.  613;  Digest,  pp.  663,  664.) 

Furthermore  the  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Presby- 
tery on  this  question  had  been  sufficiently  developed 
and  the  opinion  of  the  moderator  and  of  the  majority 
had  been  sufficiently  expressed  and  it  only  needed  the 
reassertion  of  the  claims  of  the  committee  in  a  practical 
form  on  Nov.  4th  to  make  it  a  definite  issue  before  the 
Church.  The  issue  was  raised  by  a  decision  of  the 
moderator  after  listening  to  Dr.  Briggs  that  "  the  plain- 
tiff on  the  other  side  had  a  right  to  answer  the  objec- 
tions." Dr.  Van  Dyke  raised  the  point  of  order  that 
the  committee  were  not  an  original  party.  The  moder- 
ator decided  that : 

—  "this  committee  has  been  properly  constituted  as  a  committee 
of  prosecution  and  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  as  the  original  party,**  and  "that  its 
power  is  to  carry  on  this  case  to  completion." 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  entered  a  protest.  Dr.  Brown  appealed 
from  the  decisions  of  the  moderator  and  was  seconded 
by  Dr.  Shiland.  The  moderator  refused  Dr.  Briggs  the 
floor  to  speak  upon  this  question.  The  appeal  was  put 
and  the  moderator  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  64  to  57. 
Thus  this  all-important  constitutioiial  question  %vas 
decided  without  hearing  the  parties,  and  without  debate, 
by  a  moderator  who  had  changed  his  mind  since  the  pre- 
vious meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  and  who  came  prepared 


g^  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  enforce  his  decision.  All  this  is  contrary  to  the  law 
of  the  Church  which  does  not  permit  the  moderator  to 
decide  constitutional  questions,  but  only  questions  of 
order.  A  constitutional  question  upon  which  the  legiti- 
macy of  the  whole  process  against  Dr.  Briggs  rests,  was 
decided  by  the  arbitrary  usurpation  of  authority  by  the 
moderator  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  Further-  ; 
more  the  Book  of  Discipline  requires  that  parties  should 
be  heard  on  all  questions  of  order  or  evidence  arising  in 
the  course  of  the  trial  before  the  moderator  gives  his 
decision.  But  the  moderator  refused  Dr.  Briggs  a  hear- 
ing on  this  essential  question  of  order. 

The  only  redress  for  these  wrongs  was  by  complaint 
to  the  Synod  of  New  York.  This  remedy  was  used  by 
the  defendant  and  113  other  ministers  and  elders  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York.  The  Synod  of  New  York 
assumed  jurisdiction  of  this  Complaint,  and  until  it  has 
been  determined  by  the  Synod,  the  General  Assembly  can- 
not legally  recognise  the  appellants  as  a  prosecuting 
committee. 

(3).  The  decision  of  the  moderator  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  not  only  gave  the  committee  a  status  as  a 
prosecuting  committee,  but  also  enabled  them  to  pro- 
ceed in  the  case  as  an  original  party.  If  the  case  had 
been  initiated  by  the  Presbytery  then  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  would  be  the 
prosecutor  and  an  original  party ;  according  to  the 
Book  of  Discipline  (10).  But  the  case  was  not  initiated 
by  the  judicatory,  but  by  a  committee  of  the  judicator}-, 
appointed  for  a  different  purpose,  which  at  first  usurped 
the  functions  of  a  prosecuting  committee,  and  then  was 
recognized  as  an  original  party  by  a  mistake  of  many 
voters  in  the  Presbytery  who  voted  to  sustain  the  mod- 
erator's decision,  but  who  subsequently  signed  the  com- 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  §5 

plaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York  against  the  action  of 
the  Presbytery  in  sustaining  that  decision.  The  ques- 
tion now  arises,  is  a  prosecuting  committee  an  original 
party  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  ? 

(a).  The  Book  of  DiscipHne  nowhere  makes  the  state- 
ment that  the  prosecuting  committee  is  an  original 
party.     There  is  no  statute  law  to  that  effect. 

[b).  There  is  no  precedent  in  its  favor.  The  common 
law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  against  it.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  1877  decided  that  a  prosecuting  com- 
mittee was  not  an  original  party.     The  minute  is  : 

"  In  the  case  of  the  appeal  of  Thomas  H.  Skinner  et  al  from 
the  Presbytery  of  Cmcmnati,  the  committee  recommend  that, 
masmuch  as  the  so-called  appellants  were  not  an  origmal  party, 
they  are  not  entitled  to  an  appeal."     (Minutes  1877,  p.  575.) 

These  so-called  appellants  based  their  claim  on  an 
opinion  of  the  Old  School  Assembly  in  1861  that  a  com- 
mittee prosecuting  for  common  fame  was  an  original 
party.  (Moore's  Digest,  563.)  But  this  was  merely  an 
opinion  of  that  Assembly.  It  did  not  take  effect.  For 
the  Committee  for  Common  Fame  did  not  appear  before 
them  as  appellants.  The  General  Assembly  of  1877  did 
not  regard  this  inoperative  decision  of  one  section  of 
the  Church  only,  as  any  bar  to  their  decision.  Thus  the 
claim  that  a  prosecuting  committee  is  an  original  party 
is  not  sustained  by  statute  law  and  is  opposed  by  a 
judicial  decision  of  the  General  Assembly  to  the 
contrary, 

{c).  But  it  is  urged  that  the  new  Book  of  Discipline 
intended  that  the  prosecuting  committee  should  be  an 
original  party.  The  intention  of  a  document  may  be 
determined  by  the  views  of  those  who  framed  it,  or  of 


8g  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

those  who  adopted  it  as  their  own.  It  is  reported  that 
the  original  members  of  the  committee  which  framed 
the  new  Book  of  Discipline  are  divided  in  their  opinion 
on  this  subject.  Two  of  the  most  distinguished  ecclesi- 
astical lawyers  now  living  who  were  members  of  the 
committee  on  the  revision  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
state  that  the  committee  inserted  the  provision  that  the 
accusation  should  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  "  to 
avoid  the  old  and  unsatisfactory  provision  which  made 
common  fame  the  accuser.  It  was  said  that  common 
fame  was  a  lying  jade." 

So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  inquire  there  was  no 
discussion  on  this  subject  before  the  Church  or  the 
General  Assembly  which  adopted  the  new  Book  of 
Discipline,  so  that  if  such  a  momentous  change  was 
made  in  Presbyterian  jurisprudence,  it  was  made  inno- 
cently and  unwittingly  by  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Willis  J.  Beecher: 

"  Ten  years  ago,  and  more,  when  the  revision  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  was  before  the  Church,  the  Presbytery  of  Cayuga 
objected  to  the  revised  Book  on  the  ground  that  it  was  capable 
of  being  so  interpreted  as  to  give  the  right  of  appeal  as  against  a 
verdict  of  acquittal.  In  its  overture  to  the  Portland  Assembly, 
this  Presbytery  called  attention  to  its  action  ten  years  ago,  and 
simply  reiterated  the  position  then  taken.  One  or  two  other 
Presbyteries  and  a  few  individuals  took  the  same  ground  in 
regard  to  the  revised  Book.  Their  protests  made  no  impres- 
sion at  the  time.  Men  who  might  have  been  expected  to  take 
an  interest  in  the  matter  took  no  interest  in  it.  One  reason 
assigned  was  that  there  was  really  no  ground  for  fear  that  such 
an  interpretation  would  be  ever  attempted.  It  was  said  that  the 
nature  of  an  appeal  was  everywhere  understood.  It  was  said 
that  the  danger  apprehended  by  the  protesters  did  not  exist,  inas- 
much as  it  was  absurd  to  think  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
would  ever  adopt  judicial  processes  that  all  mankind  regard  as 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  87 

manifestly  unjust.     And  so  the  matter  went  by  default,  without 
widespread  or  careful  discussion." 

Therefore  so  far  as  we  can  obtain  evidence  as  to  the 
intent  of  the  framersof  the  new  Book  of  DiscipHne  and 
of  the  Church  which  adopted  it,  we  have  no  suf^cient 
reason  that  such  a  change  in  Presbyterian  law  was  con- 
templated as  the  making  a  committee  of  prosecution  an 
original  party  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America. 

{d).  In  criminal  courts  the  public  prosecutor  repre- 
sents the  people  as  an  original  party.  So  it  is  claimed 
that  the  prosecuting  committee  should  represent  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
as  an  original  party.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor 
of  such  an  opinion.  The  civil  law  is  in  advance  of 
ecclesiastical  law  in  this  respect.  The  time  will  surely 
come  when  ecclesiastical  courts  will  not  allow  private 
prosecutors  for  public  offences,  and  when  all  trials 
for  heresy  will  be  conducted  by  public  prosecutors. 
When  this  time  shall  come  the  public  prosecutors  may 
be  made  an  original  party  by  the  statute  law  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  law  will  guard  the  new 
provision  just  as  the  commonwealth  guards  it  from 
every'  possible  abuse.  But  that  time  has  not  yet  come. 
There  is  as  yet  no  such  statute  and  no  such  usage,  and 
no  such  careful  guarding.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York 
did  not  contemplate  such  a  thing  when  the  committee 
was  appointed  to  "  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary 
proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs." 

This  committee  has  thrust  this  momentous  question 
upon  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  the  General  Assembly,  and  involved  it  with 
the  merits  of  a  great  controversy  and  enveloped  it  in 
the  excitement  of  party  feeling  so  that  it  is  exceedingly 


g§  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

difficult  to  consider  this  question  of  law  upon  its  own 
merits. 

We  should  consider  that  a  Presbytery  and  a  criminal 
court  of  law  are  not  in  exactly  the  same  situation.  It 
is  therefore  not  altogether  clear  that  the  one  should  be 
taken  as  the  model  of  the  other.  The  Presbytery  is  a 
body  composed  of  all  the  ministers  and  representative 
elders  of  all  the  Presbyterian  congregations  within  a 
given  district.  It  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  within  the  given  terri- 
tory by  its  very  constitution.  Is  it  lawful  for  the  Pres- 
bytery to  divest  itself  of  its  responsibility  as  represent- 
ing the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America?  Can  it  avoid  responsibility  for  its  ministers, 
its  churches  and  its  other  business?  According  to  the 
constitution  as  it  now  is,  the  Presbytery  is  responsible 
to  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  to  the  General  Assembly 
for  all  its  transactions,  executive,  legislative  and  judicial. 
It  cannot  divest  itself  of  any  portion  of  its  responsibil- 
ity by  throwing  it  upon  a  committee  of  its  own  appoint- 
ment. It  is  responsible  for  all  of  its  committees.  There- 
fore the  Presbytery  and  the  Presbytery  alone  must 
represent  within  its  bounds  the  Presbj'^terian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America ;  it  must  be  the  party  in 
every  case  initiated  by  it  as  a  judicatory.  The  prose- 
cuting committee  represents  the  Presbytery  in  all  that 
it  does.  It  conducts  the  case  as  the  committee  of  the 
Presbytery.  It  must  conduct  it  in  any  way  in  which 
the  Presbytery  directs  it  to  conduct  it.  It  must  begin 
when  the  Presbytery  directs  it  to  begin.  It  must  finish 
its  labors  when  the  Presbytery  directs  it  to  finish.  If  it 
fail  in  its  duty  the  Presbytery  may  censure  it  and  dis- 
band it.  It  may  appoint  another  committee  in  its 
place.     It  may  enlarge  its  numbers  or  diminish  them. 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  89 

The  Presbytery  cannot  divest  itself  of  its  authority  over 
its  committee  of  prosecution  or  shirk  responsibility  for 
its  actions.  If  the  committee  of  prosecution,  after  its 
appointment,  indulge  in  a  malignant  spirit;  if  they  show 
by  their  conduct  of  the  case  that  they  are  personally 
interested  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused ;  if  it  be- 
comes evident  to  the  Presbytery  that  they  have  become 
"  litigious,  rash  or  highly  imprudent  "  in  the  conduct  of 
the  case  ;  and  that  they  are  by  their  actions  bringing  re- 
proach upon  the  Presbytery  and  the  good  name  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America; 
if  they  heap  up  grievances  against  themselves ;  who  is 
to  bear  the  blame  in  the  higher  courts  for  all  these 
grievances  if  not  the  Presbytery  itself?  If  the  Presby- 
tery has  not  done  its  duty  in  keeping  under  its  direction 
and  control  a  committee  of  its  own  appointment,  the 
Presbytery  and  not  the  committee  will  be  censured  in 
the  superior  courts. 

There  is  no  statute  law,  there  is  no  usage  to  sustain 
the  claim  that  a  committee  of  prosecution  is  an  original 
party.  Precedent  is  against  it  and  it  cannot  be  allowed 
without  divesting  the  Presbytery  of  its  constitutional 
authority  and  its  constitutional  obligations  to  the  supe- 
rior courts.  The  appellee  and  113  other  co-presbyters 
had  no  other  redress  against  this  grievance  than  to  com- 
plain to  the  Synod.  The  Synod  of  Nezv  York  at  its  last 
meeting  assumed  jurisdiction  of  this  Cojnplaint  and  the 
Assembly  cannot  recognize  the  appellants  as  original  par- 
ties until  the  Synod  has  decided  that  they  are  such. 

(4).  After  the  Presbytery  had  voted  to  dismiss  the 
case  against  Dr.  Briggs  on  November  4,  1891,  Mr. 
Woodbury  moved  that  "  the  committee  of  prosecution 
be  and  the  same  is  hereby  discharged  with  the  thanks 
of  the  Presbytery."     The  moderator  ruled  this  motion 


90  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

out  of  order  on  the  ground  that  the  Presbytery  had  sus- 
tained the  moderator  in  his  decision  that  the  committee 
were  an  original  party  representing  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  This  then  is, 
the  third  point  in  the  Complaint  pending  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York  that  the  committee  was  recognized 
by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  "■virtually  and  prac- 
tically independent  of  the  Presbytery,''  so  that  the  Pres- 
bytery has  no  right  to  entertain  a  motion  to  discharge 
them.  This  claim  of  the  committee  to  be  independent 
of  the  Presbytery  which  appointed  them  is  not  involved 
in  the  questions  already  discussed,  whether  they  are  a 
committee  of  prosecution  and  an  original  party.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  General  Assembly  of  1877  decided  that  a 
committee  of  prosecution  was  not  an  original  party.  So 
they  might  be  an  original  party  and  yet  not  independent 
of  the  Presbytery  which  appointed  them.  The  question 
which  now  emerges  is  whether  a  prosecuting  committee 
may  be  independent  of  the  Presbytery  and  so  inde- 
pendent as  to  continue  in  life  after  the  Presbytery  would 
dismiss  them  and  to  persist  in  prosecution  after  the 
Presbytery  has  given  a  verdict  of  acquittal  and  has  ad- 
vised it  to  discontinue  prosecution. 

{a).  There  is  no  statute  law  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
which  makes  the  committee  of  prosecution  independent 
of  Presbytery. 

{J}).  There  is  no  precedent  in  Presbyterian  courts  in 
which  a  prosecuting  committee  has  been  recognized  as 
independent  of  Presbytery. 

{c).  The  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  makes 
all  committees  dependent  upon  the  judicatories  which 
appointed  them. 

The  statute  law  and  the  common  law  of  the  Presby- 
terian churches  testify  against  this  extravagant  claim  of 
the  appellants  in  this  case. 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  QJ 

{d).  The  claims  of  these  appellants  are  revolutionary 
and  disorganizing.  Here  is  a  committee  which  has  been 
acting  for  two  years  against  the  expressed  wishes  of  the 
Presbytery  which  appointed  them.  They  claim  to  repre- 
sent the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  in  appearing  against  their  own  Presbytery. 
They  won  the  appeal  last  year  against  the  decision  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  to  dismiss  the  case  against  Dr. 
Briggs.  They  are  now  striving  to  win  an  appeal  against 
a  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  acquitting 
Dr.  Briggs  of  charges  of  heresy.  Their  Presbytery  ad- 
vised them  to  discontinue  prosecution,  and  yet,  in  defi- 
ance of  the  will  of  their  Presbytery,  they  continue  the 
prosecution.  It  may  possibly  be  gratifying  to  a  party  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  that  there  is  a  faithful  remnant 
in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  who  will  contend  for 
sound  doctrine  against  a  majority  of  the  Presbytery. 
But  let  this  party  consider  that,  while  such  contention 
may  be  lawful  and  praiseworthy  within  due  bounds, 
when  conducted  by  individuals  and  exercised  in  the  un- 
questioned right  of  protest  and  complaint ;  yet  when  a 
committee  appointed  by  a  Presbytery  for  a  specific  pur- 
pose persists  in  arraigning  the  Presbytery  whose  repre- 
sentatives they  were  appointed  to  be,  as  guilty  of  error 
and  wrong  in  refusing  to  go  as  far  as  this  committee 
deems  equitable, — they  are  exalting  themselves  as  a  com- 
mittee of  Presbytery  above  the  Presbytery ;  they  arc  as- 
suming to  be  greater  and  wiser  and  more  equitable  than 
the  Presbytery;  they  are  rebelling  against  the  judica- 
tory to  whose  jurisdiction  they  are  subject  by  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  What  would  you 
think  if  a  committee  of  your  Presbytery  should  treat 
your  Presbytery  with  such  disrespect  and  airs  of  superi- 
ority, and  exalt  themselves  against   you   as  represent- 


92  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

ing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America? 

(,?).  If  the  higher  courts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
should  ever  be  so  unwise  as  to  establish  such  an  unfortu- 
nate precedent  that  a  committee  of  Presbytery  may  act 
independently  of  its  Presbytery,  you  will,  ere  long,  see 
some  strange  procedure  in  our  ecclesiastical  courts.  P'or 
if  a  committee  of  prosecution  of  a  Presbytery  may  appeal 
against  the  Presbytery,  a  committee  of  a  session  may 
appeal  against  a  session,  and  carry  on  the  case  against  a 
defendant  in  all  its  stages  until  it  reaches  the  court  of 
last  resort.  If  by  any  unwise  procedure  a  session  should 
appoint  an  ambitious  elder  as  "  a  committee  to  arrange 
and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in 
the  case  of  Mrs.  A.  B.  C,"  he  would  claim  to  be  a  prose- 
cuting committee,  to  be  an  original  party,  to  represent 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  he  might  carry  on  the  case  against  an  unfortunate 
but  innocent  lady  in  spite  of  the  advice  of  his  pastor 
and  fellow  elders,  in  spite  of  the  advice  of  his  Presby- 
tery, through  all  the  stages  of  litigation,  and  bring  Pres- 
byterian courts  into  contempt  and  shame  before  the 
world.  This  is  a  terrible  power  that  it  is  proposed  to  put 
into  the  hands  of  committees  of  prosecution ;  one  which 
may  accomplish  your  purpose  as  an  engine  of  destruc- 
tion in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  but  which,  if  once  set  in 
motion,  will  do  incalculable  mischief  in  all  parts  of  the 
Church.  It  is  safe  to  predict  that  those  who  vote  in  its 
favor  will  be  the  first  to  suffer  from  it  in  their  own  per- 
sons, families,  and  friends. 

It  is  monstrous  to  suppose  that  a  committee  of  prose- 
cution may  carry  a  case  in  all  its  stages  to  the  court  of 
last  resort,  in  defiance  of  the  washes  of  the  judicatory 
which  appointed  them.     If  a  committee  of  prosecution 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL  PARTY?  93 

should  prove  to  be  incompetent,  and  show  by  their  blun- 
ders that  they  were  involving  the  case  in  innumerable  and 
intricate  questions  of  law,  must  the  Presbytery  allow 
them  to  go  on  in  their  blunders  at  the  expense  of  jus- 
tice and  right?  If  a  committee  of  prosecution,  in  a  case 
of  prosecution  for  immorality,  should  exhibit  a  lack  of 
moral  sense  and  a  questionable  integrity,  must  the  Pres- 
bytery suffer  them  to  go  on  and  exhibit  their  wickedness 
before  all  the  courts  of  the  Church?  If  a  committee  of 
prosecution,  in  a  case  of  heresy,  should  show  their  igno- 
rance of  sound  doctrine,  and  as  representatives  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
should  present  such  a  parody  of  the  doctrines  of  our 
Church  as  to  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  the  cheek  of 
the  godly,  must  the  Presbytery  allow  them  to  go  on  and 
parade  their  ignorance  in  all  the  courts  of  the  Church  ? 
If  a  prosecuting  committee  should  manifest  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  case  that  they  were  personal  enemies  of  the 
accused,  and  are  seeking  to  injure  him  in  spite  of  truth 
and  right,  shall  they  be  allovv-ed  to  use  all  the  privileges 
of  their  position  as  a  committee  of  Presbytery,  in  the 
name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  to  injure  the  accused  in  the  higher  courts 
after  the  Presbytery  is  convinced  that  such  prosecution 
should  cease?  If  a  prosecuting  committee  should  be  in- 
fluenced unduly  to  favor  the  accused,  to  obstruct  the 
cause  of  justice,  pervert  or  keep  back  evidence,  and  in  a 
deceitful  and  hypocritical  manner  mislead  the  court  to 
unrighteousness,  has  the  Presbytery  no  power  to  change, 
reconstruct,  or  dismiss  such  a  committee  of  prosecu- 
tion? It  is  m.onstrous  for  any  judicatory  to  put  itself 
in  the  power  and  at  the  mercy  of  such  an  arbitrary  and 
irresponsible  party  as  such  a  committee  of  prosecution 
would  be. 


94-  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

The  Complaint  iioiv  pending  before  the  Synod  of  Nczv 
York,  which  is  noiv  nnder  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synody 
raises  this  question  wJiether  the  committee  appearing  before 
you  in  these  appellants  is  independent  of  the  Presbytery  or 
not.  You  cannot  lawfully  consider  them  as  such  until  the 
Synod  has  given  its  decision  in  the  case. 

(5).  The  question  of  the  original  party  and  the  ques- 
tions associated  therewith  were  brought  before  the  Synod 
of  New  York  at  Albany  by  the  Complaint  signed  by  1 14 
ministers  and  elders  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 
The  Synod  found  the  complaint  in  order,  took  juris- 
diction of  the  same,  listened  to  arguments,  debated  the 
matter,  and  resolved  that : 

"It  is  inexpedient  to  take  action  at  the  present  time  for  the 
following  reasons : 

"First.  The  case,  through  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly 
and  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  again  before  the  Presbytery, 
and  the  complainants  may  there  have  their  remedy  in  their  own 
hands. 

"  Second.  In  case  the  remedy  there  be  found  insufficient  they 
will  afterward  have  opportunity,  by  appeal  or  complaint,  to  bring 
the  matter  again  before  the  Synod." 

There  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  as 
they  have  reported  to  you,  a  Complaint  to  the  General 
Assembly  against  the  action  of  the  Synod  in  finding  the 
Complaint  in  order,  giving  you  the  best  evidence  that 
the  Complaint  is  alive  before  the  Synod.  This  Complaint 
you  have  referred  to  a  Judicial  Commission  for  trial. 

The  fact  that  all  of  these  matters  complained  of  are 
now  through  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  New  York 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  and  have  not  yet 
been  decided,  is  a  sufificient  reason  why  the  General 
Assembly  cannot  recognize  the  appellants  as  an  original 
party  and  so  qualified  to  appeal. 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL   PARTY?  95 

On  Nov.  9,  1892,  Dr.  Briggs  appeared  before  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  in  accordance  with  the  advice 
of  his  Synod  and  made  the  following  preliminary  objec- 
tion : 

First.  A  Committee  originally  appointed  "  to  arrange  and  pre- 
pare the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs  "  appears  before  you  claiming  to  be  a  Committee  of  Prose- 
cution, and  they  are  recognized  as  such  by  the  Moderator's  giv- 
ing them  the  floor  to  act  in  that  capacity.  But  their  right  so  to 
act  is  legally  questioned  by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York, 
and  it  has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

Second.  This  Committee  appeared  before  the  last  General  As- 
sembly as  an  original  party,  and  acted  as  such  by  presenting  an 
appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the 
case  against  me.  They  now  appear  before  you  as  an  original 
party  successful  in  their  appeal.  Their  right  to  act  as  an  original 
party  is  questioned  in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

Third.  This  Committee  claim  to  represent  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  to  be  independent 
of  this  Presbytery  which  appointed  them.  They  acted  inde- 
pendently of  the  Presbytery  by  appealing  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly against  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case 
against  me.  They  now  appear  before  you  with  a  reversal  of  the 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  which  they  have  obtained.  Their 
right  to  act  independently  of  the  Presbytery  is  questioned  in  the 
said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by 
the  Synod. 

Fourth.  This  Committee  appear  before  you  having  acted,  as 
is  claimed,  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  which 
provides  that  when  a  complaint  has  been  signed  by  more  than 
one-third  of  those  present  and  voting  m  the  Presbytery,  it  acts 
as  a  stay  to  further  proceedings.  The  above-mentioned  com- 
plaint, signed  by  a  majority  of  the  voters,  has  been  filed  with  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  and  has  been  found  in  order  by  the  Synod 
of  New  York,  and  is  now  m  possession  of  the  Synod  of  New  York. 
Until  the  questions  raised  in  said  complaint  have  been  determined, 
this  Committee  cannot  legally  take  any  action  in  the  matters 
complained  of.     They  cannot  act  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  or 


96  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

as  an  original  party,  or  as  independent  of  the  Presbytery  ;  and 
you  cannot  allow  them  so  to  act  without  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
complaint  embedded  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Synod  of  New  York  suggested  that  the  com- 
plainants, being  accordmg  to  the  number  of  signers  m  the  com- 
plaint, a  majority  of  the  Presbytery,  may  have  the  remedy  in 
their  own  hands,  the  Presbytery  are  respectfully  requested  to 
apply  the  said' remedy  and,  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  to  determine  these  preliminary  objec- 
tions which  I  hereby  file.  C.  A.  Briggs. 

Dr.  Briggs,  in  order  to  save  the  time  of  the  Presbytery, 
offered  not  to  argue  on  the  objection  provided  the  prose- 
cution did  not  argue.  The  moderator  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  permitted  the  prosecution  to  argue ;  but 
when  Dr.  Briggs  claimed  his  right  to  argue  in  behalf  of 
his  objection,  he  was  ruled  from  the  floor  by  the  decision 
of  the  moderator  that  his  preliminary  objection  was  out 
of  order  on  the  ground  that  the  General  Assembly  at 
Portland  had  decided  the  matter  in  favor  of  the  prose- 
cution. The  moderator  was  sustained  by  a  majority  of 
the  Presbytery  on  an  appeal  from  his  decision.  Let  the 
court  observe  that  the  moderator  undertook  to  decide  a 
question  of  fact,  namely,  what  the  General  Assembly  at 
Portland  had  done,  and  he  decided  it  erroneously  as  has 
been  clearly  shown.  But  whether  right  or  wrong  the 
moderator  had  no  right  to  decide  this  question.  It  was 
a  debatable  matter  and  was  presented  for  debate  in  the 
preliminary  objection  of  Dr.  Briggs  which  he  had  a 
right  to  make.  Against  this  action  the  defendant  gave 
notice  of  appeal  and  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York.  Inasmuch  as  he  could  not  appeal  from  an  ac- 
quittal he, was  limited  to  his  Complaint,  which  reads  as 
follows : 

[This  Complaint  will  be  found  in  The  Case  against 
Prof.  Briggs,  Part  II.,  pp.  21-28.] 


ARE  THE  APPELLANTS  AN  ORIGINAL   PARTY?  97 

The  defendant  has  sought  every  lawful  remedy  against 
the  unfortunate  action  of  the  majority  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York  in  sustaining  these  unlawful  decisions 
of  the  moderator  in  favor  of  these  appellants  as  a  com- 
mittee of  prosecution,  an  original  party,  and  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  Presbytery.  The  defendant  was  in 
hopes  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  would  determine 
these  questions  before  the  Presbytery  reopened  the  case 
in  accordance  with  the  decisions  of  the  last  General 
Assembly.  But  the  Synod  of  New  York,  for  reasons 
best  known  to  the  Synod,  decided  to  wait  for  further 
action  by  the  Presbytery.  The  Presbytery  has  taken 
action  ,  it  is  now  for  the  Synod  to  give  its  decision. 
The  General  Assembly  cannot  intrude  into  the  functions 
of  the  Synod  in  this  particular,  for  the  Synod  has  , 
present  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  Vou  cannot  at  present 
recognize  the  appellants  as  a  party,  for  their  status  as 
such  is  challenged  by  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

(6).  The  appellants  forced  their  Appeal  before  the 
General  Assembly  at  Portland,  notwithstanding  their 
knowledge  of  the  Complaint  signed  by  114  ministers 
and  elders  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  which  was 
lodged  with  the  stated  clerk  of  the  Synod  ere  the  case 
was  brought  before  the  General  Assembly  for  its  deci- 
sion. This  Complaint  was  strictly  in  accord  with  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  which  states : 

"Whenever  a  Complaint,  in  cases  non-judicial,  is  entered 
against  a  decision  of  a  judicatory  signed  by  at  least  one-third 
of  the  members  recorded  as  present  when  the  action  was  taken, 
the  execution  of  such  decision  shall  be  stayed,  until  the  final 
issue  of  the  case  by  the  superior  judicatory."    (85.) 

As  was  said  at  Portland  : 

"  It  is  evident  that  a  vote  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  sustaining  a  ruling  of  the  moderator  in  an  inter- 


98  ENTERTAIxMNG  THE  APPEAL 

pretation  of  our  Book  of  Discipline,  is  a  non-judicial  deci- 
sion." Therefore,  this  Complaint  ought  to  have  acted  as 
a  stay  until  the  Synod  had  decided  the  whole  question  of 
the  original  party.  The  prosecution  argued  before  the 
last  Assembly  after  the  appellee  had  exhausted  his  right 
of  speech  and  when  he  had  no  right  of  reply,  and  again 
before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on  the  occasion 
when  the  Presbytery  refused  him  the  floor  for  argument, 
that  inasmuch  as  the  majority  of  the  names  were 
attached  to  the  complaint  after  the  ten  days  allowed  by 
law,  that  it  could  not  act  as  a  stay.  This  superficial 
objection,  to  which  the  appellee  was  not  allowed  to 
reply,  doubtless  influenced  the  last  General  Assembly 
and  also  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  But  its  invalidity 
is  evident,  for  the  law  is  not  that  two-thirds  of  the  vote 
shall  be  attached  to  the  notice  of  complaint,  but  to  the 
complaint  itself.  The  notice  of  complaint  must  be  filed 
within  the  ten  days,  and  it  is  sufificient  that  it  be  signed 
by  the  chief  complainant  on  behalf  of  himself  and 
others.  But  the  complaint  itself  need  not  be  filed 
before  the  second  day  of  the  next  ensuing  meeting  of 
the  superior  judicatory.  The  names  were  all  attached 
to  the  document  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  stated  clerk 
of  the  Synod  of  New  York  in  May,  five  months  before 
it  was  necessay  that  they  should  be  attached.  It  is  the 
complaint  signed  by  two-thirds  which  acts  as  a  stay,  and 
not  the  notice  of  complaint.  The  requirements  of  the 
law  of  stay  were  fully  satisfied  in  this  complaint,  and  it 
ought  to  have  stayed  the  General  Assembly  at  Portland, 
and  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  from  any  further 
action  in  the  case  until  the  complaint  was  determined 
by  the  Synod  of  New  York.  The  law  of  stay  still 
attaches  to  this  same  complaint  which  is  now  alive  under 
the  jurisdiction   of  the  Synod  of  New  York.     It  stays 


USURPIXG  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  SYNOD  99 

this  Assembly  and  all  parties  and  courts  until  the  Synod 
has  acted.  Atid  now  that  the  Synod  has  fojmd  this  com- 
plaint in  order,  and  has  assumed  jurisdiction  and  post- 
poned action  luitil  next  October,  yoii  are  stayed  from 
action,  not  only  by  the  lazu  of  stay,  but  also  by  the  fact  that 
the  Synod  of  Nezv  York  has  taken  the  appellee  and  his  co- 
complainants  tinder  its  protection.  It  interposes  the  shield 
of  its  jurisdiction  and  authority,  and  the  General  Assejn- 
bly  cannot  take  the  case  out  of  its  hands. 

IV. — THE  APPEAL  CANNOT  BE  ENTERTAINED  WITHOUT  USURP- 
ING THE  JURISDICTION  WHICH  AT  PRESENT  BELONGS  TO 
THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK. 

(I).  //  is  a  rule  in  lazv  that  appeals  shall  be  made  gra- 
datim,  and  not  per  saltern.  It  is  the  rule  of  canon  law 
and  of  civil  law  that  there  shall  be  no  leaping  of  inter- 
mediate courts,  but  that  the  process  should  take  its  reg- 
ular course  through  the  courts  in  their  order  and  grade 
of  ascent.  This  rule  is  recognized  in  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline which  prescribes  that :  "  Appeals  are,  generally,  to 
be  taken  to  the  judicatory  immediately  stiperior  to  that 
appealed  from."  (f02.)  The  court  immediately  supe- 
rior to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  is  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  The  appellants  ought  to  have  followed  this 
rule.  Tf  they  have  valid  grounds  of  appeal  from  a  final 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  if  they  are 
an  original  party  and  it  is  lawful  for  them  to  appeal 
against  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  they  ought  to  have  made 
their  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

It  is  true  that  this  rule  admits  of  exceptions.  The 
adverb  ^^ generally  "  is  the  loop-hole  through  which  they 
propose  to  go.  But  this  loop-hole  is  not  large  enough 
to  admit  an  appeal  which  is  so  great  in  its  pretensions 
and  so  immense  in  its  train  of  consequences.     The  appel- 


lOQ  ENTERTAINING    THE  APPEAL 

lants  are  obliged  to  present  reasons  why  you  should 
entertain  an  appeal  which  according  to  this  rule  should 
generally  go  to  the  Synod.  They  must  give  exceptional 
reasons  in  order  that  this  appeal  may  be  an  exceptional 
case.  Such  exceptional  reasons  must  be  within  the 
limits  of  the  law  and  usage  of  the  courts  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  They  must  not  abridge  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  appellee.  They  must  be  equitable  in 
themselves,  and  of  such  a  character  as  to  furnish  a  safe 
precedent.  It  is  not  sufHcient  that  the  exceptional 
reasons  shall  be  in  the  interest  of  the  appellants.  If 
they  are  against  the  interest  of  the  appellee  you  cannot 
lawfully  consider  them.  It  is  not  sufificient  that  they 
are  in  the  immediate  interests  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  If  they  would  violate  precedent  and  law,  if 
they  would  establish  a  new  and  dangerous  precedent, 
you  cannot  safely  sacrifice  the  permanent  interests  of 
the  Church  for  any  transient  and  temporary  advantage. 

We  shall  first  consider  the  reasons  why  this  appeal 
cannot  legally  take  advantage  of  the  adverb  "  generally," 
and  then  test  the  reasons  presented  by  the  appellants 
for  bringing  their  case  before  the  General  Assembly. 

(2).  There  are  no  precedents  to  justify  this  Appeal. 
There  is  only  one  case  given  in  the  Digest  in  which  the 
General  Assembly  recognized  exceptional  reasons  for 
leaping  the  Synod  prior  to  1870.  This  was  the  case  of 
Mr.  Bourne  in  18 16,  in  which  the  sentence  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Lexington  deposing  him  from  the  ministry 
was  reversed  and  a  new  trial  ordered.  But  in  this  case 
the  Synod  of  Virginia  stood  upon  its  rights  and  censured 
the  Presbytery  of  Lexington  for  allowing  an  appeal  froni 
their  decision  directly  to  the  Assembly.  This  precedent 
is  therefore  a  doubtful  precedent.  It  did  not  gain  the 
consent  of  the  Synod  which  was  leaped.     It  is  doubt- 


USURPING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  SYNOD         101 

ful  whether  the  General  Assembly  acted  lawfully  in 
this  case.  The  Synods,  especially  in  those  regions  where 
a  higher  type  of  Presbyterianism  was  maintained,  did 
not  look  with  complacency  upon  this  intrusion  upon 
their  jurisdiction.  There  was  no  repetition  of  leaps  of 
Synods  until  1870.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
took  pains  in  their  Book  of  Discipline  to  make  such  a 
leaping  of  the  Synods  an  impossibility  by  the  law  : 

"  No  appeal  shall  be  carried  from  ajt  i?iferior  to  any 
other  court  tha^i  the  one  immediately  superior,  without  its 
consents     (259.) 

The  practice  of  the  General  Assembly  has  been  either 
to  dismiss  appeals  which  have  leaped  the  Synods  or 
else  refer  them  to  the  Synods  for  adjudication.  A  few 
examples  will  suffice. 

(i).  Two  appeals  of  Samuel  Lowrey  were  dismissed 
in  1822  "  because  the  appellant  had  not  prosecuted  his 
appeals  before  the  inferior  judicatories." 

(2).  Matthew  H.  Rice  had  leave  to  withdraw  his 
appeal  in  1830,  on  the  ground  that  "no  reasons  are 
assigned  by  the  appellant  for  making  this  appeal  to  the 
General  Assembly  instead  of  the  Synod." 

(3).  The  church  at  Cooperstown  "  had  leave  to  with- 
draw their  appeal  in  1834,  and  prosecute  it  before  the 
Synod  of  Utica." 

(4).  John  Turbitt,  in  1859,  had  leave  to  withdraw  his 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Peoria, 
deposing  him  from  the  ministry,  "  because  the  case  had 
not  been  presented  before  the  Synod." 

(5).  The  papers  in  the  case  of  the  appeal  of  Francis 
M.  Denmick  in  1872,  were  returned  to  the  parties  pre- 
senting them,  "  that  they  may  be  adjudicated  by  the 
Synod  of  Iowa,  South." 

The   reluctance  of  General  Assemblies  to  entertain 


202  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

appeals  directly  from  presbyteries  may  be  seen  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  in  1870  against 
the  Presbytery  of  Luzerne  for  an  alleged  invasion  of 
Presbyterial  jurisdiction,  A  special  reason  was  given  in 
this  case,  namely,  "  because  of  these  presbyteries  having 
no  common  synodical  relations."  They  belonged  to 
different  synods.  No  synod  could  judge  bet vyeen  them. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  this  was  an  appropriate 
case  for  the  General  Assembly,  But  the  Assembly  pre- 
ferred another  way.  A  new  synod  had  been  organized, 
which  embraced  both  presbyteries.  Therefore  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  proposed  that  "  the  new  synod  take  up 
the  case  and  that  the  Presbytery  of  Luzerne  cease  all 
,  action  until  the  synod  decides." 

So  much  was  this  the  established  usage  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  that  in  the  Barnes  case,  when  the  whole 
Church  was  excited  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  and 
when,  if  ever,  a  speedy  settlement  of  the  issue  was  desir- 
able, Dr.  Junkin  courteously  asked  Mr.  Barnes  and  the 
Presbytery  to  agree  harmoniously  in  carrying  the  case 
directly  to  the  Assembly.  But  when  Mr.  Barnes  declined, 
Dr.  Junkin  recognized  the  right  of  his  opponent  and 
appealed  to  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania.  Such  courtesy 
has  been  conspicuous  by  its  absence  in  the  case  against 
Dr.  Briggs. 

Since  the  reunion  there  have  been  two  exceptional 
cases  in  which  the  General  Assembly  allowed  the  appel- 
lants to  leap -the  Synod.  One  of  these  was  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  W.  W.  McLane.  This  was  an  appeal  of  a 
defendant  against  the  final  judgment  of  his  Presbytery 
condemning  him  as  guilty  of  heresy.  This  case  was  not 
tried  because  the  appellant  was  granted  leave  to  with- 
draw his  appeal.  It  is  a  precedent  still  more  doubtful 
than  that  of  Mr.  Bourne  in  18 16.     But  even  if  these  two 


USURPING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  SYNOD         103 

cases  of  appeals  of  defendants  should  be  regarded  as 
valid  precedents,  they  do  not  justify  the  leaping  of  the 
Synod  and  the  entertainment  of  an  appeal  of  a  prosecut- 
ing committee  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  These 
two  appeals  of  Bourne  and  McLane  were  exceptional 
because  a  minister  had  been  deposed.  As  was  said  a 
a  year  ago : 

"  All  law  protects  the  innocent  and  gives  the  presumption  to 
the  defendant.  A  minister  who  has  been  declared  guilty  by  a 
Presbytery  might  suffer  serious  injury  if  an  appeal  had  to  go  in 
Its  regular  course  through  the  Synod  to  the  General  Assembly. 
Such  a  man  might  prefer  a  speedy  decision  of  his  case  by  the 
supreme  court,  and  waive  his  right  of  appeal  to  the  intermediate 
court.  But  a  prosecutor  is  in  a  different  situation.  He  suffers 
no  injury  by  delay.  He  is  deprived  of  no  right  by  the  trial  of 
the  case  before  the  intermediate  court  in  the  regular  way.  There 
is  no  reason  why  he  should  insist  upon  a  speedy  determination  of 
the  case." 

The  other  exceptional  case  was  the  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  at  Portland  last  year  in  which  they  per- 
mitted these  appellants  to  leap  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  entertained  the  appeal  against  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  in  dismissing  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs. 
This  decision  was  influenced  if  not  determined  by  the 
opinion  of  the  moderator  of  the  last  Assembly,  who 
seems  not  to  have  known  of  the  usage  of  the  supreme 
courts  of  the  Church,  when  in  an  answer  to  a  question, 
he  said:  "In  my  mind  there  is  no  constitutional  pro- 
vision by  which,  without  a  new  trial,  this  appeal  could 
be  sent  to  the  Synod  of  New  York."  (Case,  p.  ii.)  In 
fact,  as  we  have  seen,  the  General  Assembly  has  more 
than  once  sent  appeals  to  synods.  But  this  leaping  of 
the  Synod  of  New  York  last  year  has  not  yet  received 
the  consent  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  for  the  Synod  of 
New  York  has  taken  jurisdiction  of  a  Complaint  which 


104 


ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 


if  sustained  renders  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly 
null  and  void,  and  makes  the  whole  process  since  the 
dismission  of  the  case  by  the  Presbytery  unlawful. 

But  even  if  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  at 
Portland  should  be  regarded  as  final,  constitutional,  and 
a  lawful  precedent,  it  is  no  precedent  for  the  present 
appeal,  for  that  was  an  appeal  against  a  dismissal  of  a 
case,  and  aimed  at  a  new  trial, — this  is  an  appeal  against 
a  final  judgment  in  a  case,  and  against  a  verdict  of 
acquittal  and  it  aims  at  a  reversal  of  the  acquittal  and 
a  final  judgment  of  condemnation  for  heresy  with  a 
sentence  of  suspension  or  deposition.  There  is  no  prec- 
edent whatever  for  the  leaping  of  the  Synod  by  such  an 
appeal. 

(3).  It  is  against  the  policy  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
that  there  should  be  a  leaping  of  the  court  of  the  Synod. 

In  1882,  a  great  advance  was  made  in  reconstructing 
the  Synods,  so  as  to  increase  their  efficiency,  dignity, 
and  influence.  They  were  enlarged  and  made  State 
Synods.  Many  of  them,  like  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  became  so  large  that 
their  commissioners  are  delegates  from  the  Presby- 
teries. The  law  was  passed  making  the  "decisions 
of  the  Synod  on  appeals,  complaints,  and  references, 
which  do  not  affect  the  doctrine  or  constitution  of  the 
Church,"  to  be  "final"  (Form  of  Government,  XI.  4). 
The  Synods  have  thus  become  judicatories  of  vastly 
more  importance  than  they  used  to  be.  Will  this  Gen- 
eral Assembly  now  take  action  which  will  decrease  their 
dignity,  influence,  and  power?  If  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  the  largest  of  the  Synods,  may  be  overleaped  to- 
day for  the  sake  of  a  speedy  settlement  of  the  case  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  what  Synod  in  the  Church  can  hope  to  escape 
to-morrow  when  some  other  ambitious  prosecutor  may 


USURPING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF   THE   SYNOD         105 

urge  the  speedy  settlement  of  the  case  of  some  other 
alleged  heretic  ?  It  is  easy  to  see  that  if  this  change  of 
policy  takes  place,  the  Synods  will  lose  far  more  than 
they  have  gained  in  1882. 

If  the  General  Assembly  entertain  this  Appeal,  they 
will  break  down  the  barriers  of  our  constitution,  which 
guarantees  the  rights  of  the  Synods  ;  they  will  so  enlarge 
the  loop-hole  of  exceptional  cases  that  exceptions  will 
hereafter  be  the  rule ;  they  will  drive  a  coach  and  four 
through  the  breaches  in  the  palace  of  justice,  and  ex- 
pose it  to  the  depredations  of  every  ambitious  litigant. 
For  if  it  be  lawful  to  leap  the  Synod  in  the  interest  of 
defendants,  as  in  the  McLane  case  and  the  Bourne  case, 
and  now  in  the  interest  of  prosecutors  in  the  Briggs 
case,  both  in  an  appeal  against  a  dismission  and  in  an 
appeal  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  there  can  be  no 
barrier  to  prevent  the  leaping  of  the  Synod  in  any  case 
hereafter,  and  you  may  inscribe  your  decision  with  the 
name  Ichabod,  for  the  glory  of  the  Synod  will  have 
departed  from  it. 

(4).  If  yoii  should  entertain  this  Appeal,  you  ivould  de- 
prive the  defendant  of  his  right  to  appear  before  the  court 
of  the  Synod.  The  defendant  has  reason  to  believe  that 
the  appellants  fear  to  bring  their  case  before  the  Synod 
of  New  York.  They  have  reason  to  dread  lest  their 
appeal  against  the  verdict  of  acquittal  will  not  be  enter- 
tained by  the  Synod.  The  defendant  has  great  confi- 
dence in  the  Synod  of  New  York  that  it  will  do  him 
justice,  and  that  its  decision  will  be  just  and  right.  It 
is  his  constitutional  right  to  go  before  the  Synod.  His 
city  of  refuge  against  these  prosecutors  is  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  The  General  Assembly  has  no  constitu- 
tional right  to  obstruct  him  from  seeking  refuge  with 
the  Synod.    He  casts  himself  into  the  arms  of  the  Synod 


IQQ  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

of  New  York,  in  the  confidence  that  the  Synod  will 
shield  him  from  any  injustice  and  wrong  that  may  be 
done  him.  He  claims  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod, 
and  denies  that  the  Assembly  has  any  present  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  case.  What  right  have  you  under  the  con- 
stitution to  deprive  him  of  this  right?  What  precedent 
have  you  to  justify  you  in  refusing  him  this  right? 
What  principle  of  equity  can  you  plead  for  such  a  vio- 
lation of  individual  rights?  You  would  do  a  wrong  un- 
paralleled in  the  history  of  Presbyterianism,  a  wrong 
which  could  be  equalled  only  in  the  annals  of  the  in- 
quisition. The  defendant  will  use  every  remedy  that 
the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  courts  will  give  him,  rather 
than  submit  to  such  a  wrong. 

(5).  If  you  sJiould  entertain  this  Appeal,  you  violate  the 
constitutional  rights  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

The  Presbytery  has  not  given  its  consent  to  leap  the 
Synod  of  New  York.  The  Presbytery  has  the  right  to 
claim  the  vindication  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  against 
these  prosecutors.  These  appellants  appeal  against  the 
final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  They 
ask  you  to  condemn  the  Presbytery  and  reverse  their 
final  judgment.  Commissioners  from  the  Presbyteries 
represented  in  this  General  Assembly,  look  the  situation 
in  the  face  !  Apply  to  it  the  Golden  Rule  of  our  Saviour. 
What  would  you  think  of  it  if  a  committee  of  your 
Presbytery  should  force  your  Presbytery  for  trial  before 
the  General  Assembly  without  its  consent  ?  What  would 
you  think  of  it  if  your  Presbytery  should  be  deprived  of 
its  rightful  defence  before  the  Synod  ?  If  you  listen  to 
the  Appeal  of  these  prosecutors,  you  will  establish  a 
precedent  that  will  vex  you  in  your  own  Presbyteries 
before  many  days.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  and  the  other  Presbyteries  which 


USURPING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  SYNOD         107 

compose  the  Synod  of  New  York,  will  submit  to  such  an 
act  of  violence  and  wrong. 

(6).  You  cannot  entertain  this  Appeal  without  depriving 
the  defendant  and  his  co-presbyters  of  the  right  of  com- 
plaint, which  is  guaranteed  to  them  in  the  constitution. 
The  only  remedy  the  defendant  and  his  co-presbyters 
had  against  unjust  and  unlawful  action  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  was  by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  If  the  verdict  of  the  Presbytery  had  been 
against  him  he  might  have  appealed.  But  he  cannot 
appeal  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  Therefore  he  was 
limited  to  complaints,  and  complaints  can  only  be  made 
to  "  the  next  superior  judicatory  "  (83),  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  He  and  his  co-presbyters  gave  notice  of 
several  complaints,  which  it  is  their  intention  to  prose- 
cute before  the  Synod  of  New  York  at  its  next  meeting. 
One  of  these  has  already  been  called  to  your  attention. 
These  are  the  other  complaints  made  against  the  inter- 
locutory decisions  of  the  Presbytery : 

[These  complaints  are  given  in  The  Case  against  Prof 
Briggs,  Part  II.,  pp.  69-77.] 

These  complaints  are  against  interlocutory  judgments 
of  the  Presbytery,  and  have  to  do  with  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  case.  If  the  Synod  recognize  the  validity 
of  these  complaints,  the  prosecutors  have  no  case  against 
him,  and  any  decision  this  Assembly  might  make,  if  they 
should  entertain  the  Appeal  and  then  sustain  it  and  re 
verse  it,  would  be  null  and  void  through  the  reversal  by 
the  Synod  of  these  interlocutory  judgments  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York.  The  defendant  and  his  co-presby- 
ters have  the  constitutional  right  to  make  these  com- 
plaints. That  was  the  only  way  in  which  they  could 
bring  these  unjust  and  unlawful  proceedings  of  the  Pres- 
bytery before  the  superior  courts.     The  Synod  has  a 


108  .      ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

right  to  entertain  them  and  determine  them.  The  Syn- 
od cannot  refuse  the  complainants  their  right  of  a  hear- 
ing and  of  a  decision.  If  the  Assembly  entertain  this 
Appeal  without  considering  these  complaints  which  can- 
not legally  be  brought  before  you,  you  cannot  have  the 
whole  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  before  you,  you  will  have  only 
an  ex  parte  and  a  partial  statement  of  the  case,  you 
would  on  the  one  hand  deprive  him  of  his  legal  right  of 
complaint,  on  the  other  hand  you  would  run  the  risk  of 
making  an  ex  parte  judgment. 

The  court  should  be  on  their  guard  lest  they  do  gross 
injustice  by  such  a  procedure. 

The  defendant  made  a  number  of  preliminary  objec- 
tions before  the  trial  began.  The  Presbytery  sustained 
four  of  these  objections.  This  gives  the  appellants  seven 
of  their  grounds  of  appeal.  But  the  Presbytery  over- 
ruled five  of  these  objections  and  the  only  redress  the 
defendant  has  is  in  his  five  complaints  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  Will  you  review  four  of  these  objections  in 
the  interest  of  the  appellants  when  you  cannot  review 
five  of  these  objections  in  the  interest  of  the  appellee? 
Will  you  entertain  their  Appeal  against  the  procedure 
of  the  Presbytery  so  far  as  it  favors  the  defendant  when 
you  cannot  entertain  his  complaints  against  that  pro- 
cedure so  far  as  it  favors  the  prosecution  ?  Will  you 
entertain  their  Appeal  against  his  evidence  when  you 
cannot  entertain  his  complaint  against  their  evidence  ? 
Surely  no  court  of  law  could  do  such  flagrant  injustice. 

(7).  You  camiot  entertain  this  Appeal  without  assum- 
ing jurisdiction  of  a  case  ivJiich  is  now  lawfully  under  the 
Jurisdiction  of  the  Synod.  The  Assembly  have  already 
been  informed  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  has  assumed 
jurisdiction  of  a  complaint  signed  by  114  ministers  and 
elders  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  which  was  pre- 


USURPING  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  THE  SYNOD         l()9 

sented  at  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  in  October  last.  It 
would  be  an  unconstitutional  and  revolutionary  proced- 
ure for  you  to  assume  jurisdiction  of  this  case,  which 
could  not  be  recognized  as  valid  by  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  which  could  not  prevent  the  Synod  from  pro- 
ceeding with  the  case  in  the  constitutional  way.  There- 
fore even  if  you  should  make  your  final  judgment  and  re- 
verse the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  it 
could  not  yet  be  a  final  judgment,  for  the  defendant,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  the  Synod  of  New  York 
could  not  regard  it  as  constitutional  or  valid. 

(8).  The  law  of  the  Church  is  that  Appeals  should  be 
consolidated  with  Complaints.  The  law  is  :  "  If  a  case 
should  be  carried  to  an  appellate  judicatory  by  both  ap- 
peal and  complaint,  the  same  should  be  consolidated  for 
trial,  if  deemed  proper  by  the  appellate  judicatory."  (93.) 
It  is  impossible  to  comply  with  this  law  unless  the  ap- 
peal go  where  the  complaints  are,  for  complaints  cannot 
legally  leap  the  Synod  even  if  an  appeal  may.  You  may 
send  the  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  New  York.  But  by  no 
process  of  law  can  this  Assembly  entertain  the  complaints. 
Therefore  the  only  way  in  which  the  Appeal  and  the  Com- 
plaint can  be  consolidated,  is  for  the  Assembly  to  advise 
the  prosecution  to  proceed  to  the  Synod  with  their 
Appeal. 

(9).  It  is  nnlaivful  and  it  is  inequitable  to  review  a 
final  judgment  before  the  interlocutory  Judgments  cojn- 
plained  as;ainst  have  been  reviewed. 

These  Complaints  now  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  or  to  be  brought  before  the  Synod 
at  its  next  meeting,  are  complaints  against  interlocutory 
judgments  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  The  only 
way  in  which  these  interlocutory  judgments  can  be  re- 
viewed is  in  the  court  of  the  Synod.     If  these  interlocu. 


110  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

tory  judgments  of  the  Presbytery  should  be  reversed, 
the  final  judgment  would  be  null  and  void.  Therefore 
the  General  Assembly  must  wait  until  the  Synod  has 
determined  these  complaints  against  the  interlocutory 
judgments,  before  it  can  entertain  an  appeal  against  the 
final  judgment.  That  is  the  voice  of  law  and  oi  prece- 
dent and  of  the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

For  all  of  these  reasons  you  cannot  entertain  this  Ap- 
peal without  violating  the  rights  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  ;  and  without  interfering  with  the  rights  of  the 
defendant  and  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  a 
hearing  before  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

To  encroach  upon  these  reserved  rights  of  the  defend- 
ant and  the  lower  courts  would  be  to  do  such  an  un- 
paralleled wrong  that  they  would  be  justified  in  resisting 
it  to  the  utmost  extremities  in  the  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical courts. 

It  seems  almost  incredible  that  the  General  Assembly 
now  in  session  in  the  capital  of  our  country,  the  fountain 
of  law  for  our  nation,  in  full  view  of  all  these  monuments 
of  constitution,  and  of  law,  and  of  order,  could  even 
consider  the  propriety  of  committing  such  a  v/rong  and 
running  such  a  risk,  which  at  the  utmost  can  only  save 
a  year  of  time  and  bring  by  a  hasty  decision  to  a  final 
issue  a  case  which  may  be  brought  to  a  final  issue  with- 
out violence  and  without  wrong  by  the  next  General 
Assembly. 

The  system  of  law  which  governs  the  courts  of  the 
Church  has  developed  in  harmony  with  the  system  oi 
law  which  governs  our  native  land.  Its  stately  struc- 
ture has  been  erected  by  the  piety,  the  wisdom,  the 
industry  and  the  experience  of  many  generations.  All  the 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL  m 

great  nations  of  antiquity  have  contributed  to  its  mate- 
rial. Moses  and  the  prophets,  Draco,  Solon,  and  Ly- 
curgus,  the  Ten  Commands  and  the  Twelve  Tables,  the 
Pandects  and  the  Institutes,  the  Canonists  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Jurists  of  the  Modern  State,  have 
united  in  the  building  of  the  palace  of  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical law.  God  forbid  that  the  appellee  should  stain 
any  one  of  the  precious  stones  of  its  structure.  He 
would  gladly  suffer  injury  and  even  wrong  rather  than 
violate  any  of  its  sanctities.  Under  its  stately  roof 
and  in  its  ample  enclosures  there  is  peace  and  safety 
and  right.  We  have  looked  upon  its  foundations  of 
justice.  We  have  studied  its  pillars  of  right.  We  have 
examined  its  courses  of  equity.  How  dare  we  disturb 
a  single  one  of  them  ?  Surely  you  will  not  tear  down 
one  stone  after  another  of  this  sacred  pile  in  order  to 
gratify  the  vain  ambition  of  these  prosecutors  and  give 
them  a  victory  at  such  a  cost  to  every  one  but  them- 
selves. 

v. — WHAT  REASONS  DO  THEY  GIVE  VOU  FOR  DOING  SO  MANY 
AND  SO  GREAT  WRONGS,  FOR  INCURRING  SUCH  GREAT 
PERILS,  AND  FOR  ESTABLISHING  SUCH  DANGEROUS  PREC- 
EDENTS ? 

If  a  revolution  be  necessary  in  order  to  purge  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  a  return  to  chaos  be  their  aim 
in  order  to  destroy  what  they  call  heresy,  they  should 
present  the  best  of  reasons  for  such  extreme  measures. 
We  have  listened  to  their  reasons.  They  have  been  be- 
fore you  for  many  months  in  their  printed  Appeal.  You 
have  had  ample  time  to  reflact  upon  them.  Possibly 
other  reasons  are  kept  in  reserve  to  bring  before  you 
after  the  appellee  has  exhausted  his  privilege  of  the 
floor,  which  they  think  they  may  then  impose  upon  you 


112  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

without  imperilling  their  validity.  They  have  used  but 
half  an  hour  in  their  opening.  They  gave  little  that  is 
worthy  of  attention.  They  act  against  the  usage  of  all 
courts  in  reserving  their  argument  until  it  may  be  safe 
from  the  criticism  of  the  appellee.  The  appellants  have 
shown  great  skill  in  such  tactics.  But  if  you.  should 
allow  them  to  go  beyond  their  privilege  of  rebuttal  and 
bring  in  any  additional  reasons,  you  will  doubtless  find 
that  those  which  we  shall  test  are  a  fair  sample  of  the 
whole. 

(i).  The  appellants  claim  that 

"  If  the  Appeal  should  go  to  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  be 
passed  upon  by  that  judicatory  when  the  case  reaches  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  by  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Synod,  all  of 
the  Presbyteries  constituting  that  Synod  would  be  excluded 
from  representation  in  the  final  determination  of  these  import- 
ant questions.  If  the  Appeal  goes  directly  to  the  Assembly,  the 
Commissioners  from  only  one  Presbytery  in  the  entire  Church 
would  be  excluded  from  sitting,  deliberating  and  voting  in  the 
final  decision.  In  the  Synod  of  New  York  there  are  thirty-two 
Presbyteries,  nearly  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  whole  number  of 
Presbyteries  in  the  Church.  Inasmuch  as  all  these  Presbyteries, 
excepting  one,  would  be  fully  represented  and  heard  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  the  General  Assembly  alone  can  giv^e  a  final 
decision,  we  believe  the  time  and  the  interests  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  will  be  best  conserved  if  the  Assembly  should  enter- 
tain the  Appeal  according  to  the  Committee's  request." 

It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  the  majority  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  should  have  used  this  argument  in 
their  prejudgment  of  the  case. 

This  is  specious  and  plausible,  but  all   the  more  sus- 
picious on  that  account.     At  the  last  General  Assembly  • 
the  appellants  represented  that  they  would  prove  to  be 
the  best  friends  of  the  appellee  and  that  it  was  his  inter- 
est that  he  should  be  tried  in  the  court  of  the   Presby- 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL     I13 

tery.  They  had  their  way.  The  trial  has  taken  place  and 
now  they  appeal  against  the  verdict  of  acquittal.  Such 
friends  have  been  sufficiently  well  known  to  the  world 
since  the  story  of  Job.  These  same  prosecutors  now  rep- 
resent that  it  is  in  the  interests  of  the  Synod  that  they 
leap  the  Synod.  But  who  made  these  appellants  the 
attorney  to  plead  the  interest  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  ?  It  will  be  time  enough  for  them  to  represent 
the  interest  of  the  Synod  when  they  have  received  a 
commission  from  the  Synod.  The  Synod  of  New  York 
has  rights  and  duties  in  the  case.  It  is  for  the  Synod 
and  for  the  Synod  alone  to  say  whether  it  will  consent 
to  be  leaped.  The  Synod  did  not  give  its  consent  last 
October.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  will  give  its  consent 
next  October. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  an  apparent  unfairness  in  ex- 
cluding fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  Church  from  the  court  of 
last  resort.  But  if  the  Synod  should  be  excluded  will  it 
injure  the  appellants  or  the  appellee  ?  The  appellee  is 
willing  to  trust  his  Synod  and  to  run  the  risk.  He  is 
the  one  who  is  most  deeply  concerned.  He  is  the  only 
one  who  risks  his  ecclesiastical  life.  If  he  is  willing  to 
take  the  risk,  why  should  the  appellants  be  so  anxious 
to  avoid  it  ? 

But  it  is  not  so  clear  that  the  representatives  of  Pres- 
byteries within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  of  New  York 
would  be  excluded  frorn  a  vote  in  a  final  decision  of  the 
supreme  court.  The  representatives  of  the  Synod  would 
be  excluded,  all  members  of  the  Synod  would  be  ex- 
cluded. But  it  should  be  considered  that  the  Synod  of 
New  York  is  a  body  of  delegates  and  that  it  would  be 
quite  easy  for  the  Presbyteries  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Synod  of  Nev/  York  to  send  as  their  commissioners  to 
the  Assembly,  ministers  and  elders  who  were  not  mem- 


11^  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

bers  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  who  took  no  part 
in  the  proceeding  of  the  Synod,  and  so  would  not  be 
excluded  from  the  final  vote  in  the  General  Assembly. 
There  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  about  this  matter. 
But  certainly  no  law  or  precedent  would  exclude  them. 
This  reason  for  leaping  the  Synod  therefore  is  without 
force.  There  is  no  difficulty  such  as  is  alleged  ;  and  if 
there  were,  it  would  be  far  better  to  face  the  difficulty 
and  suffer  from  it,  than  do  the  vastly  greater  wrong  of 
intruding  upon  the  reserved  rights  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York. 

(2).  Another  reason  given  by  the  appellants  for  the 
entertainment  of  their  Appeal  is: 

"  B'^Meving  that  the  trial  of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  is  one  of  the 
most  important  in  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  by 
reason  of  the  dangerous  errors  alleged  to  be  contained  in  the 
Address  of  the  said  Dr.  Briggs." 

Dangerous  errors  are  still  alleged  against  the  Inau- 
gural Address  of  Dr.  Briggs,  notwithstanding  his  ac- 
quittal by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  These  appel- 
lants are  doubtless  sincere  in  their  allegation.  But  the 
presumption  is  against  them.  These  may  be  reasons  to 
justify  them  in  their  course  before  the  bar  of  their  own 
consciences,  but  they  are  not  reasons  why  you  should 
entertain  their  Appeal  and  leap  the  Synod  of  New  York. 
You  may  in  your  private  opinion  think  that  there  are 
dangerous  errors  in  the  Inaugural  of  Dr.  Briggs.  But 
you  cannot  legally  as  judges  in  the  case  take  that  for 
granted.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  having  ac- 
quitted him  of  teaching  dangerous  errors,  Dr.  Briggs  is 
rectus  in  airia,  and  must  remain  so  until  the  verdict  is 
reversed.  You  cannot  reverse  it  as  judges  before  you 
have  tried  the  merits  of  the  Appeal.  You  cannot  try 
the  merits  of  the  Appeal  when  you  are  considering  the 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL     115 

legal  grounds  for  and  against  the  entertainment  of  the 
Appeal.  The  appellants  in  this  reason  are  asking  you 
to  join  with  them  in  prejudging  the  whole  case  and 
therefore  their  reason  is  invalid.  It  cannot  legally  be 
considered  at  this  stage. 

It  is  alleged  that  these  dangerous  errors  make  the  case 
*•  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church."  The  appellee  thinks  that  they  ex- 
aggerate the  importance  of  the  case.  If  the  case  has  be- 
come so  important  it  is  not  because  of  the  doctrinal 
issues  that  are  at  stake ;  but  because  of  the  violations  of 
law  which  have  already  taken  place,  and  which  it  is  pro- 
posed still  further  to  make  in  order  to  accomplish  the 
purpose  of  a  party  in  the  Church  and  win  from  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  new  definitions  of  dogma.  The  doctrinal 
issues  are  certainly  important.  It  is  not  proper  to  con- 
sider their  merits  here.  But  it  is  proper  for  the  defend- 
ant to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  has  always  claimed 
that  the  doctrinal  differences  are  extra-confessional  ques- 
tions, and  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  its  final 
iudgment  asserts  that  "  it  does  not  find  that  the  defend- 
ant has  transgressed  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed  under 
our  constitution  to  scholarship  and  opinion." 

But  granting  for  argument's  sake  that  the  defendant 
and  his  Presbytery  may  be  wrong  in  this  matter  and 
that  the  appellants  are  right,  they  would  still  have  no 
reason  to  leap  the  Synod  of  New  York  Was  not  the 
case  of  Albert  Barnes  fully  as  important  from  the  point 
of  view  of  1835  .''  And  yet  Dr.  Junkin,  the  private  prose- 
cutor, carried  it  to  the  Synod.  Was  not  the  case  of  Dr. 
Lyman  Beecher,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Lane 
Theological  Seminary,  fully  as  important  from  the  point 
of  view  of  1835  ?  And  yet  Dr.  Wilson,  the  private  prose- 
cutor, did  not  venture  to  leap  the  Synod  and  appeal  to 


^^^lQ  ENTERTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

the  General  Assembly.  If  the  cases  of  Albert  Barnes 
and  Lyman  Beecher  had  to  go  on  gradatim  in  the  midst 
of  the  controversies  of  the  Church  in  1 835-1 837,  why 
should  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  ht  per  salteni  in  the  contro- 
versies of  the  last  decade  of  the  19th  centur}^? 

(3).  A  third  reason  given  by  the  appellants  for  leaping 
the  Synod  is : 

*'  Believing  that  the  distinct  and  definite  condemnation  of 
those  alleged  errors  by  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  said  Pres- 
byterian Church,  is  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  their  spread 
and  influence  in  the  denomination," 

This  reason  brings  out  the  aim  of  the  appellants  in  this 
Appeal.  They  desire  that  there  should  be  a  distinct  and 
definite  condemnation  of  the  alleged  errors  of  Dr.  Briggs. 
But  how  can  the  General  Assembly  condemn  them  un- 
less they  are  proved  to  be  errors?  How  can  they  be 
condemned  as  errors  in  an  unlawful  manner  ?  Unless 
they  are  condemned  in  the  forms  of  law  who  will  re- 
spect such  condemnation?  If  the  process  had  been  car- 
ried on  in  the  forms  of  law,  according  to  the  constitu- 
tion, and  if  in  a  constitutional  way  Dr.  Briggs  had  been 
condemned,  he  would  have  submitted  to  the  law  in  its 
constitutional  application  to  his  case.  But  can  you  ask 
him  to  submit  to  any  illegal  procedure,  or  t6  unconstitu- 
tional action?  The  General  Assembly  may  go  on  and 
by  a  majority  vote  override  all  the  safeguards  of  the 
constitution  and  do  unprecedented  wrong  to  the  de- 
fendant, his  Presbytery  and  his  Synod,  and  condemn 
his  views  as  errors.  But  would  those  who  are  con- 
demned by  so  unrighteous  procedure  respect  it  or  obey 
it  ?  If  they  refuse  obedience,  how  can  you  compel  tliem 
to  obey  ?  You  have  no  other  power  than  moral  power.  Ij 
you  become  hwno^al  in  your  actions  you  destroy  your 
moral  power  and  it  becomes  worse  than  inoperative.     The 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL  H^ 

appellants  say  that :  "  The  delay  in  reaching  an  ultimate 
decision  through  an  appeal  by  way  of  the  Synod  could 
not  be  less  than  a  year,  during  which  the  character  of 
instruction  given  our  candidates  for  the  gospel  ministry 
might  be  unfavorably  affected." 

But  suppose  that  the  appellants  should  win  their  case 
and  you  should  condemn  the  Inaugural  as  containing  hurt- 
ful errors,  would  that  condemnation  affect  the  character  of 
the  instruction  given  to  candidates  for  the  ministry? 
Who  believes  that  it  would  ?  The  only  effect  of  the  ad- 
verse action  taken  hitherto  has  been  to  call  the  defend- 
ant to  the  defence  of  his  Inaugural  and  win  him  the  sup- 
port of  a  host  of  friends  all  over  the  land  in  defence  of 
the  rights  of  scholarship  and  opinion. 

If  this  General  Assembly  should  overcome  all  the  right 
of  the  defendant  and  do  him  the  wrong  of  reversing  his 
acquittal  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  there  any 
likelihood  that  the  defendant  would  yield  his  opinions? 
Do  you  suppose  that  Dr.  Briggs  would  cease  his  teach- 
ings on  the  mooted  questions  ?  Would  candidates  for  the 
ministry  cease  to  attend  upon  his  instructions?  You 
know  well  enongh  that  none  of  these  things  could  hap- 
pen. Your  decision  would  be  a  brutuni  fiilmen.  It  could 
have  no  other  effect  than  to  call  a  multitude  to  arms,  in 
a  life-and-death  struggle  for  truth  and  for  right. 

If  on  the  other  hand  yoU  should  send  this  case  where 
it  belongs,  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  then  in  the 
regular  course  of  procedure  within  the  limits  of  our  con- 
stitution and  with  the  guarding  of  all  rights,  the  supreme 
court  should  eventually  condemn  Dr.  Briggs  and  exclude 
him  from  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  the  defendant  would  acqui- 
esce in  the  result  and  would  seek  authority  to  exercise 
his  ministry  from  some  other  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 


1[8  ENTERTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

What  matters  it  if  it  take  another  year  ?  If  the  Assembly 
direct  these  appellants  to  take  their  appeal  to  the  Synod, 
of  New  York,  the  appellee  will  not  question  their  right 
so  to  do,  nor  object  to  the  appeal  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  not  first  taken  to  the  Synod.  The  General  Assem- 
bly has  an  evident  right,  as  he  has  argued,  to  send  the 
case  to  the  Synod  and  the  Synod  will  be  obliged  to  hear 
the  whole  case ;  and  whatever  the  Synod  may  do,  it  will 
certainly  come  before  the  next  General  Assembly,  and  a 
final  decision  may  be  then  reached.  The  Church  of 
Scotland  took  fifteen  years  to  decide  the  case  of  Prof. 
Simson.  Far  better  that  you  should  take  one  more 
year  in  the  thorough  sifting  of  this  case,  than  violate 
law  and  order  and  equity,  and  confront  a  revolution 
and  a  religious  war. 

The  defendant  agrees  to  the  principle  so  far  as  he  is 
concerned  :  "  Fiat  jiistitia,  mat  ccelumy  But  he  is  not 
willing  that  the  ccelum  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
should  fall  in  the  interests  of  injustice  and  wrong.  He 
will  do  his  utmost  to  prevent  such  a  calamity. 

(4).  The  fourth  reason  presented  by  the  appellants  for 
leaping  the  Synod  is: 

"  Believing  that  a  special  responsibility  rests  upon  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  which  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  deciding  in 
all  controversies  respecting  doctrine ;  of  reproving,  warning  or 
bearing  testimony  against  error  in  doctrine  in  any  Church,  Pres- 
bytery or  Synod,  and  in  cases  that  effect  or  concern  the  promo- 
tion of  truth  and  holiness  through  all  the  Churches  under  its 
care." 

The  General  Assembly  has  a  special  responsibility  as 
to  these  matters  when  they  are  brought  before  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  a  legal  manner.  But  so  have  the  Synod 
and  the  Presbyteries  each  in  their  order  special  respon- 
sibility for  those  matters  within  their  respective  bounds. 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL  ng 

Such  responsibility  rises  gradatim  and  cannot  be  assumed 
per  saltern. 

It  is  not  for  the  General  Assembly  to  usurp  that 
special  responsibility  which  belongs  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  The  special  responsibility  of  the  General 
Assembly  begins  when  the  Synod  of  New  York  has 
given  over  the  responsibility  to  the  General  Assembly  in 
the  legal  forms  of  Review,  Reference,  Complaint,  or 
Appeal,  based  on  the  decisions  of  the  Synod.  TJie 
special  responsibility  of  the  General  Assembly  does  not 
begin  until  the  Synod  has  exhausted  its  special  responsi- 
bility. 

The  fallacy  of  the  whole  prosecution  is  wrapped  up 
in  the  opinion  that,  the  General  Assembly  has  the  right 
of  determining  finally  all  questions  of  doctrine.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  is  a  constitutional  Church  in  which 
all  its  representative  bodies  have  their  duties  specified 
and  restricted.  The  General  Assembly  is  no  more  om- 
nipotent in  the  Presbyterian  Church  than  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  is  in  the  affairs  of  the  Nation. 
The  General  Assembly  has  the  authority  to  act  under 
the  constitution  in  the  forms  of  the  constitution  and  to 
determine  all  constitutional  questions,  but  no  others. 
It  may  determine  all  doctrinal  questions  so  far  as  they 
belong  to  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  West- 
minster Confession,  but  not  a  step  further.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  has  no  authority  to  determine  questions 
of  doctrine  which  are  beyond  the  range  of  the  defini- 
tions of  the  Westminster  Confession.  If  the  General 
Assembly  should  do  this  it  would  violate  the  constitu- 
tion. The  constitution  prescribes  a  way  in  which  the 
Presbyterian  Church  may  change  its  doctrinal  system, 
whether  by  addition  or  subtraction,  or  by  transforma- 
tion.    This  can  be  done  by  two-thirds  of  the  Presby- 


J 20  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

teries.  It  belongs  to  the  reserved  rights  of  the  Pres- 
byteries to  make  new  definitions  of  Law  and  of  Doc- 
trine. It  cannot  be  exercised  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. If  therefore  the  General  Assembly  should 
undertake  to  decide  extra-confessional  questions  of  doc- 
trine, such  as  are  in  dispute  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
it  would  make  an  unconstitutional  decision  which  would 
be  ipso  facto  null  and  void.  No  one  would  be  under 
any  obligations  whatever  to  obey  it.  What  can  be 
gained  by  such  decisions  other  than  widespread  dis- 
satisfaction, which  might  result  either  in  a  public  strug- 
gle to  obtain  counter  decisions  in  subsequent  Assem- 
blies, or  in  secret  resistance  waiting  for  better  times,  or 
in  schism  and  disruption?  The  Presbyterian  Church  is 
engaged  in  a  great  revision  movement  which  seems  to 
be  turning  in  the  direction  of  a  new  Creed.  Is  it  not 
far  better  for  the  Church  to  direct  its  energies  for  the 
securing  new  definitions  of  its  faith  on  these  mooted 
questions  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  in  the  constitutional 
way,  or  else  leave  them  to  the  battle  of  scholarship  and 
opinion  ? 

(5).  The  last  reason  given  by  the  appellants  for  leap, 
ing  the  Synod  in  order  to  the  entertainment  of  the 
Appeal  is : 

"  In  view  of  the  desirableness  of  the  speediest  settlement  of 
this  most  important  case,  do  hereby  appeal  to  and  request  your 
Venerable  Body  to  enter  immediately  upon  the  consideration 
and  judicial  investigation  of  the  appeal  hereby  presented,  to 
issue  the  case,  and  to  finally  determine  the  important  questions 
involved,  so  as  to  secure  the  purity  and  the  peace  of  the  Church 
at  the  earliest  possible  day." 

They  ask  you  to  make  haste  and  settle  the  dispute 
at  the  earliest  possible  day.  The  defendant  is  more 
anxious  that  the  case  should  be  speedily  settled  than 


REASONS  FOR  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL     121 

the  appellants  can  be.  He  has  so  many  important  en- 
gagements to  fulfil  that  the  contest  for  his  own  rights 
has  already  cost  him  more  than  they  are  worth  to  him. 
If  he  could  honorably  retire  from  the  contest  he 
would  count  it  a  privilege  to  do  so.  But  greater  inter- 
ests than  his  own  interests  are  at  stake.  He  is  called  to 
be  the  standard-bearer  in  a  battle  for  truth  and  right. 
He  cannot  return  his  sword  to  its  scabbard  until  truth 
and  right  have  won.  The  appellants  have  forced  him 
before  the  courts  of  the  Church.  They  have  compelled 
his  attendance  upon  this  venerable  body.  They  are 
urging  you  to  make  haste,  to  hurry  on  to  a  decision  and 
to  rid  them  of  their  adversary.  Such  haste  might  be 
appropriate  in  a  court-martial,  where  the  public  good 
required  the  court  to  run  great  risks  of  doing  a  lesser 
individual  wrong  rather  than  run  the  risks  of  doing  a 
greater  public  injury.  But  such  haste  is  indecent  in 
courts  of  law. 

Justice  does  not  hasten.  It  moves  on  majestically 
and  silently  like  the  stars  in  their  courses.  It  pulls 
steadily  and  irresistibly  like  the  force  of  gravitation. 
Right  does  not  speed,  because  it  is  sure  of  ultimate  vin- 
dication. Truth  does  not  hurry,  for  it  has  no  anxiety 
about  the  future.  It  is  falsehood  which  dreads  the 
future.  It  is  wrong  whose  hands  haste  to  mischief.  It 
is  injustice  whose  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood.  If  these 
prosecutors  had  a  righteous  cause  they  would  not  be  in 
such  a  hurry  to  bring  it  to  its  issue.  If  they  were  sure 
of  the  truth,  they  would  not  by  a  hop,  skip  and  a  jump 
avoid  precedents  and  statutes  and  courts.  They  are 
striving  their  utmost  to  avoid  the  regular  course  of  pro- 
cedure and  secure  a  speedy  settlement  by  this  General 
Assembly ;  because  they  see  that  the  eyes  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  are  opening  to  the  unwisdom  of  the 


^22  ENTERTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

procedure  into  which  it  has  been  pushed  by  unwise  and 
ambitious  leaders.  There  are  signs  that  the  panic  about 
the  Bible  and  the  Confession  is  passing  away.  They 
dread  the  retribution  that  is  in  store  for  them  when 
the  Presbyterian  giant  learns  how  greatly  he  has  been 
deceived. 

"  Though  the  mills  of  God  grind  slowly, 

Yet  they  grind  exceeding  small ; 
Though  with  patience  He  stands  waiting, 

With  exactness  grinds  He  all." 


Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  : 

The  appellee  has  presented  for  your  consideration 
invincible  reasons  why  you  cannot  entertain  this  Appeal. 
He  has  shown  you  (i)  that  it  is  not  so  much  an  Appeal 
against  a  final  judgment  as  against  legislative  decisions 
and  executive  opinions  and  advice  of  the  Presbytery 
which  are  not  appealable ;  (2)  that  there  can  be  no 
appeal  by  a  public  prosecutor  against  a  verdict  of  ac- 
quittal ;  (3)  that  these  prosecutors  are  not  accredited  als 
an  original  party;  and  (4)  that  you  cannot  take  jurisdic- 
tion of  a  final  judgment  when  the  Synod  of  New  York 
has  taken  jurisdiction  of  interlocutory  judgments  in  the 
case.  These  massive  walls  of  law  and  equity  frown 
upon  this  Appeal.  Upon  these  battlements  the  appellee 
takes  his  stand.  The  constitution  of  our  Church  is  his 
banner.  Here  he  will  remain  standing  whatever  may 
betide.  He  can  do  no  other.  Here  stands  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  which  has  acquitted  him.  Here 
stands  the  Synod  of  New  York,  which  has  taken  juris- 
diction of  his  complaints.  Here  will  rally,  sooner  or 
later,  all  who  are  loyal  to   Presbyterian  law  and  disci- 


FINAL  STATEMENT  12B 

pUne;  all  who  have  confidence  in  truth  and  scholarly 
investigation  ;  all  who  would  advance  in  the  lines  of  the 
historic  faith  and  order  of  our  Church ;  all  who  seek  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  but  a  few  words  in  conclusion. 
I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  moderator  and 
the  commissioners  of  this  Assembly  to  page  6  of  the 
printed  volume  which  has  been  circulated  in  this  house.* 
Near  the  end  of  the  page  you  will  observe  that  there 
are  three  stars — not  stars  of  glory,  but  stars,  as  I  think, 
of  shame,  because  they  indicate  an  omission  which 
ought  not  to  have  been  made,  because  that  which  is 
omitted  would  have  brought  before  your  minds  a  very 
important  item  in  the  interest  of  the  appellee.  What 
right  have  these  appellants  to  quote  a  portion  of  the 
action  of  a  Presbytery  and  omit  from  that  action,  in  an 
ofificial  document  or  semi-official  document,  such  matters 
as  they  please.?  I  therefore  claim  the  right  to  supply 
that  omission,  and  to  read  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  the  action  which  has  been 
omitted,  which  is  as  follows: 

"  Whereas,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 
in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  the 
inaugural  address  delivered  January  20,  1891,  appointed 
a  committee  to  formulate  charges  against  the  author  of 
the  address,  the  Rev,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and 
whereas  since  that  action  was  taken  he  has  supple- 
mented these  utterances  by  answering  to  certain  techni- 
cal questions  as  follows: 

"  Question  i.  Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason  as  co-ordinate  sources  of  authority.'' 
Answer.    No. 


*  See  p.  4  of  this  book. 


;124  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  Or,  do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ?    A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  2.  When  you  use  the  word  'reason,*  do  you  in- 
clude the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling?     A.  Yes. 

"  Q-  3-  Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a  satisfactory 
definition  of  Inspiration  :  '  Inspiration  is  such  a  divine 
direction  as  to  secure  an  infallible  record  of  God's  reve- 
lation in  respect  to  both  fact  and  doctrine '  ?     A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  4.  Do  you  believe  the  Bible  to  be  inerrant  in  all 
matters  concerning  faith  and  practice,  and  in  everything 
in  which  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  or  a  vehicle  of 
divirte  truth,  and  that  there  are  no  errors  that  disturb  its 
infallibility  in  these  matters,  or  in  its  records  of  the  his- 
toric events  and  institutions  with  which  they  are  insep- 
arably connected  ?     A.  Yes. 

"Q.  5.  Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture  are  due  to  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  divine 
energy?     A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  6.  Do  you  hold  what  is  commonly  known  as  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  probation  ?  Do  you  believe  in  pur- 
gatory?    A.  No. 

"  Q.  7.  Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are 
final,  and  that  a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no 
further  opportunity  of  salvation?     A.  Yes. 

**  Q.  8.  Is  your  theory  of  progressive  sanctification  such 
that  it  will  permit  you  to  say  that  you  believe  that  when 
a  man  dies  in  the  faith,  he  enters  the  middle  state  regen- 
erated, justified,  and  sinless?     A.  Yes. 

"(Signed)  C.  A.  Briggs. 

"  I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from 
the  Minutes  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

"  (Signed)       E.  M.  KiNGSLEY,  Recorder." 


FINAL  STATEMENT  125 

Air.  Moderator  and  brethren,  the  appellant  in  the 
opening  argument,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  entered 
into  the  merits  of  the  appeal.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  go 
into  that  merit  myself,  except  so  far  as  to  make  an 
explicit  denial  of  his  statement,  when  he  charges  me 
with  teaching  doctrines  which  are  fundamental  errors.  1 
deny  that  I  have  ever  taught  any  doctrines  that  are  fun- 
damental errors,  and  my  Presbytery  has  acquitted  me, 
brethren,  of  teaching  any  fundamental  errors. 

I  afifirm  before  this  body  that  I  believe  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures to  be  the  word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  according  to  the  vow  that  I  assumed 
at  my  ordination,  and  which  I  have  renewed  every  three 
years,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary.  I  affirm  that  I  hold  to  the  whole  doctrine 
taught  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion relating  to  Holy  Scripture,  without  any  qualifica- 
tion or  reservation  whatever.  I  beg  leave  to  affirm  that 
I  hold  to  the  entire  system  of  doctrine  set  forth  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  and  anything  that  I  may  have 
said  that  at  all  conflicts  with  this  statement  is  due  to 
the  misinterpretations  vvhich  have  been  put  upon  the 
language  which  I  have  uttered.  I  will  not  say  that  those 
misinterpretations  are  always  intentional.  I  shall  not 
exonerate  myself  from  some  possible  blame  in  lack  of 
clearness  in  the  enunciation  of  them.  But  I  beg  leava 
to  affirm  the  truth,  that  I  have  made  no  statement  that 
at  all  conflicts  with  the  affirmations  that  I  have  made 
before  you. 

And  now,  brethren,  in  all  honesty  between  us  as 
brethren,  ought  not  this  case  to  cease?  Send  it  to  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  and  I  call  in  all  honesty  and  friend- 
liness upon  the  appellants  to  unite  with  me  in  that  pro- 
cedure ;  and  I   promise  them   in  your  presence  that  if 


226  ENTERTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

they  will  go  with  me  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  where 
the  whole  case  can  be  considered  by  that  Synod,  that 
in  the  most  friendly  and  courteous  manner  I, will  aid  in 
a  full  solution  of  all  the  matters  in  dispute.     And  if  the 
case  is  brought  before  the  next  General  Assembly  and 
you  make  a  final  judgment    in    the    case,  then,  I   will 
submit  to  your  verdict.     That  is  all  I  have  to  say.     If 
I  have  said  anything  that  at  all  injures  the  feelings  of 
any  member  of  this  court,  I  very  much  regret  it.     If  I 
have  said  anything  in  my  Inaugural  that  has  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  Church,  or  caused  any  doubt  or  uncer- 
tainty or  affliction  to  even  the  feeblest  of  God's  children, 
I  regret  it  more  than  any  one  else  can  do.     I  have  been 
a  teacher  of  the  Bible  in  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary for  twenty  years.     There  are  only  four  professors 
now  teaching  in  your  theological  seminaries  who  have 
been  in   service  longer  than   I    have.     There  are  only 
two  of  them  who  have  taught  more  ministers  now  in  the 
service  than  I   have.     I  challenge  the  production   of  a 
single  one  of  these  ministers  who  have  been  under  my 
instruction  during  the  past  twenty  years,  who   can  say 
that  anything  that  I  have  taught  him  has  undermined 
or  diminished  his  faith  in  the  divine  authority  of  Holy 
.Scripture,  or  his  love  for  the  Word  of  God. 


III. 

THE  ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL. 

Dr.  Geo.  D.  Baker,  chairman  of  the  Judicial  Commit- 
tee, on  May  23d  presented  the  Majority  Report  of  the 
Judicial  Committee : 

"  In  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  an 
appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  from  the  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  rendered  January  9,  1893, 
the  Judicial  Committee  begs  leave  respectfully  to  report  that 
they  have  examined  the  papers  pertaining  to  this  case,  and  find : 

"  I.  That  the  appellant  in  the  case  is  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  represented  by  its  prosecuting 
committee  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  as  such 
appellant  has  the  right  of  appeal  to  this  Assembly  as  an  original 
party;  and  said  prosecuting  committee  is  entitled  to  conduct 
the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  judicatory  until  the 
final  issue  be  reached. 

"  2.  That  due  notice  of  appeal  in  this  case  has  been  given,  and 
the  appeal  and  specifications  of  error  alleged  and  the  record  in 
the  case  have  been  filed  m  due  time  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Book  of  Discipline,  sections  96  and  97  ;  and  that  said 
appeal  is  accordingly  in  order. 

"3.  We,  therefore,  respectfully  recommend  to  the  General  As- 
sembly that  the  appeal  be  entertained  and  the  case  be  issued. 

"  Pending  the  adoption  of  this  recommendation,  your  commit- 
tee submit  the  following  resolutions  : 

"  (A)  Resolved^  That  the  General  Assembly  finds  that  due  no- 

(127) 


228         ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 

tice  of  the  appeal  in  this  case  has  been  given,  and  that  the  ap- 
peal and  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged  have  been  filed 
in  due  time  and  that  the  appeal  is  in  order  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

"  (B)  Resolved,  That  after  the  judgment,  the  notice  of  appeal, 
the  appeal  and  the  specifications  of  error  alleged  have  been  read 
and  the  parties  have  been  heard,  namely,  the  prosecuting  com- 
mittee and  the  appellee,  as  to  whether  said  appeaL  shall  be  en- 
tertained, three  hours  being  allowed  for  such  hearing,  namely, 
one  and  one-half  hours  to  either  party,  and  after  hearing  from 
the  members  of  the  Assembly,  three  hours  being  allowed  for 
such  hearing,  the  Assembly  shall  then  vote  upon  the  following 
resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  the  appeal  from  the  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  case  of  Prof.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  is  hereby  entertained,  and  it  is  ordered  that  the 
case  proceed  to  trial  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 

"All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

"George  D.  Baker,  John  T.  Duffield,  John  Hays,  James  T.  Left- 
wich,  James  L.  Maxwell,  E.  J.  Sanders,  John  Peacock,  J.  B.  Ken- 
dall, Edward  F.  Green,  Thomas  McDougall,  Cyrus  Pershing, 
William  Fulton,  George  W.  Cummings,  H.  M.  Craydon,  and 
James  L.  Orr." 

Dr.  Baker  then  said : 

"  I  am  requested  also,  to  give  to  the  Assembly  a  sup- 
plemental statement  with  reference  to  the  principal 
reasons  which  have  influenced  the  committee  in  reach- 
ing the  decision  which  they  have  now  declared : 

"The  Judicial  Committee  feels  constrained  to  put  on 
record  and  submit  to  the  General  Assembly,  as  supple- 
mental to  its  report,  the  following  principal  reasons 
which  have  influenced  and  determined  them  in  reaching 
the  conclusions  declared  in  said  report : 

"  I.  The  Book  of  Discipline  provides  in  express  and 
^J^    unambiguous  terms  for  an  appeal  directly  from  the  Pres- 


ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL         129 

bytery  to  the  General  Assembly.  Chapter  9,  Sec.  4, 
paragraph  102,  reads  as  follows : 

'"Appeals  are  generally  to  be  taken  to  the  Judicatory 
immediately  superior  to  that  appealed  from.' 

"  And  Chapter  12,  Sec.  4,  reads  as  follows : 

" '  The  General  Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue  all 
appeals  concerning  the  doctrine  or  Constitution  of  the 
Church  which  may  be  regularly  brought  before  them 
from  the  inferior  Judicatories.' 

"  Such  an  appeal  directly  to  the  General  Assembly  is, 
therefore,  plainly  permissible  when  the  gravity  of  the 
issue  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  render  it  advisa- 
ble. Accordingly,  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  in 
strict  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  not  only  decided  the  status  of  appellants  as 
a'  committee  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages, 
in  whatever  judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached, 
but  they  also  decided  that  the  gravity  of  this  case  and 
the  circumstances  connected  with  it  were  such  as  to  jus- 
tify an  appeal  from  the  Presbytery  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

"  If  this  case,  afTecting  vitaPlly  the  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  and  having  to  do  with  its  principles  and  its 
purity  throughout  its  borders,  be  not  a  proper  case  to 
be  appealed  directly  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  if  it 
is  not  in  its  character  the  very  case  for  which  the  direc- 
tory provides  in  the  matter  of  direct  appeal,  it  may  be 
well  asked.  What  case  could  possibly  be  such  ?  It  is 
evident  to  us  that  it  was  to  provide  for  precisely  such 
an  emergency  as  is  now  upon  the  Church  in  this  case 
that  provision  was  made  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  when 
it  granted  the  right  of  direct  appeal  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

"  2.  In  the  final  decision  of  the  grave  issues  involved 


;1^30  ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 

in  this  case — and  it  is  only  the  General  Assembly  which 
can  give  this  final  decision— it  is  eminently  desirable 
that  the  Assembly  making  such  decision  should,  as  far 
as  practicable,  be  representative  of  the  entire  Church. 

"  Should  these  views  be  decided  by  an  Assembly  on 
appeal  from  the  Synod  of  New  York,  the  Commission- 
ers from  that  Synod  representing  more  than  one-fifth  of 
the  entire  membership  of  the  Church  would  be  debarred 
by  Sec.  98  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  from  sitting,  delib- 
erating, or  voting  in  the  case.  Moreover,  such  a  case  of 
the  exclusion  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  might  work  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  interests  of  the  defendant  him- 
self. As  far  as  the  defendant  himself  in  this  case  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  manifestly  more  just  that  the  Assembly  which 
finally  passes  upon  his  case  should  be  one  not  com- 
pelled to  exclude  his  own  synod,  the  Synod  of  New 
York. 

"  3.  For  more  than  two  years  the  peace  of  the  Church 
has  been  sadly  disturbed  by  the  issues  pending  in  this 
case.  It  seems  highly  desirable,  nay,  it  seems  to  us  im- 
perative, to  settle  these  issues  without  unnecessary  delay. 
To  keep  the  Church  in  continued  agitation,  anxiety, 
and  uncertainty  for  another  year,  when  it  is  within  our 
constitutional  prerogative  to  determine  the  matter  at 
the  present  time,  is,  in  our  judgment,  to  unjustifiably 
evade  the  solemn  duty  in  the  Providence  of  God  de- 
volved upon  us,  and  would  make  us  responsible  for  the 
prolongation  of  a  condition  of  affairs  in  our  beloved 
Church  which  imperils  its  purity  and  its  peace,  and  hin- 
ders it  in  the  fulfillment  of  its  legitimate  mission  and  the 
prosecution  of  its  legitimate  work. 

"  This  report  is  signed  by  the  same  members  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  who  signed  the  report  already  read. 

The  Moderator:  Do  I  understand  from  the  Chair- 


ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL         131 

man  that  there  is  a  minority  report  authorized  to  be 
submitted  ? 

Dr.  Baker  :  There  is. 

The  Moderator:  The  Chairman  of  that  minority 
will  read  his  report. 

The  moderator  then  recognized  Dr.  Niccolls,  of 
St.  Louis. 

Rev.  Dr.  NiCCOLLS:  Mr.  Moderator,  I  well  know 
that  the  fact  that  we  present  a  minority  report  puts  us 
already  under  the  suspicion  of  the  Assembly  as  standing 
in  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  the  claims  of  the  appellant 
in  this  case.  We  do  not  wish  to  be  so  considered.  We 
are  not  here  in  the  least  degree  to  question  the  right  of 
this  appeal  to  come  before  the  Assembly.  We  are  not 
here  to  .question  in  the  least  degree  the  orderliness  of 
this  report.  But  it  is  with  reference  to  an  opinion  ex- 
pressed in  regard  to  the  entertainment  of  this  appeal, 
which  I  trust  will  be  clearly  presented  in  the  minority 
report,  that  we  present  our  views  at  this  time.  I  will 
first  read  the  exception  we  have  taken,  and  then  as 
briefly  as  possible  state  our  reasons : 

Minority  Report  of  the  Judicial  Committee. 

"  The  undersigned  members  of  the  Judicial  Committee  feel 
constrained  to  submit  to  the  General  Assembly  the  following 
minority  report : 

"  We  recommend  that  the  majority  report  be  amended  by  strik- 
ing out  all  that  follows,  beginning  with  the  recommendation  that 
the  appeal  be  entertained  and  issued,  and  substituting  the  follow- 
ing :  '  We  find  the  appeal  in  order,  and  recommend  that  the 
parties  be  heard  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  section  99.'   We  ask  this  for  the  following  reasons: 

"  I.  The  majority  report,  by  recommending  that  the  appeal  be 
entertained  and  issued,  prejudges  the  case  by  advising  the  Assem- 
bly to  do  what  the  Book  of  Discipline  says  shall  be  determined 
only  after  the  parties  have  been  heard.     The  language  of  the 


][32  ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 

Book  is  as  follows  :  '  The  judicatory  may  then  determine,  after 
hearing  the  parties  whether  the  appeal  shall  be  entertained.'  The 
impropriety  of  recommending  that  the  appeal  to  entertain  an 
issue  in  this  case  is  the  more  apparent  when  it  is  remembered 
that  one  of  the  points  involved  in  it  is  whether  the  appeal  shall 
be  entertained  by  the  Assembly  or  referred  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York. 

"  2.  The  majority  report  in  form  pledges  the  committee  in  ad- 
vance to  entertain  the  appeal,  the  parties  not  yet  being  heard  ; 
and  yet  this  same  committee  is  entitled  'to  sit,  judge,  and  vote 
in  this  case  as  the  members  of  the  judicatory.' 

"  3.  The  majority  report  is  contrary  both  to  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  as  stated  in  rule  99,  Section  IV, 
Chapter  IX,  which  is  as  follows:  'Where  due  notice  of  an  ap- 
peal is  given  and  the  appeal  and  the  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged  have  been  filed  in  due  time,  the  appeal  shall  be  consider- 
ed in  order.  The  judgment,  the  notice  of  appeal,  the  appeal, 
and  the  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged  shall  be  rea'd,  and  the 
judicatory  may  then  determine  after  hearing  the  parties  whether 
the  appeal  shall  be  entertained.' 

"  It  will  be  seen  that  the  functions  of  the  Judicial  Committee 
in  this  case  are  limited  to  finding  the  appeal  in  order  and  recom- 
mending the  method  of  procedure,  and  that  it  is  not  its  right  to 
recommend  to  the  Assembly  that  the  appeal  shall  be  entertained 
and  issued. 

"  For  these  reasons  we  recommend  that  it  shall  be  amended 
so  as  to  conform  with  the  law  of  the  Church. 

"This  is  signed  by  John  Meigs,  Charles  T,  Thompson,  John  Y. 
Foster,  Henry  H.  Stebbins,  and  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Minority. 

"  Now  may  I  say  a  word,  Mr.  Moderator,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  reasons  that  have  influenced  us  ? 

The  Moderator  :     Certainly,  sir. 

Dr.  NiCCOLLS :  "  You  will  observe  that  we  are  not 
differing  in  principle  from  the  majority  report.  We  are 
perfectly  ready  that  this  case  shall  be  put  on  its  passage 
before  this  Assembly.  But  I  call  your  attention  especi- 
ally to  the  different  meanings  in  which  the  word  '  enter- 
tained '   is   used.     Ordinarily  by  the  word  '  entertained  ' 


EiNrEKrAlNMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL  I33 

we  mean  that  the  subject  shall  be  taken  up  for  its  con- 
sideration. In  that  view  of  it  at  first  the  committee 
were  unanimous.  We  were  all  agreed  that  this  report 
should  be  brought  before  the  Assembly  and  that  the 
Assembly  should  pass  upon  it,  and  then,  after  hearing 
all  the  parties,  decide  what  should  be  done.  But  when 
we  were  thus  agreed  it  was  stated  and  decided  by  the 
Chairman  that  this  report  meant  that  those  who  com- 
mitted themselves  to  it  had  agreed  to  tell  the  Assembly 
that  in  their  judgment  a  decision  should  be  such  as  they 
have  recommended.  You  will  see  that  this  was  presented 
in  the  argument,  and  very  ably  presented  in  the  argument, 
of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  who  has  taken  the 
arguments  presented  by  the  appellant  in  the  report  for 
the  most  part  and  incorporated  them  into  the  report  of 
the  majority  ;  and  in  view  of  the  arguments  used  by  the 
appellants,  which  you  have  not  yet  heard,  you  vv^ould  be 
directed  to  entertain  this  appeal  and  give  the  very  ver- 
dict, by  the  form  of  the  resolution,  which  you  are  to 
vote  upon.  This  we  claim  is  deciding  for  the  Assembly 
beforehand.  We  wish  this  report  to  come  before  you  in 
the  simple  form  of  law,  unprejudiced  by  our  decision  in 
one  way  or  another.  We  simply  find  the  report  in  order, 
and  tell  you  to  look  as  the  Book  requires,  into  all  the 
facts  of  the  case.  But  the  other  report  proposes  that 
you  shall  say  what  should  be  done  with  the  report. 
What  we  ask  is  simple  fairness  in  the  case. 

"  You  will  remember  that  certain  overtures  were  re- 
ferred from  this  Assembly  to  our  committee ;  quite  a 
large  number  of  those  overtures  were  referred,  asking 
that  a  certain  disposition  be  made  of  this  appeal.  Those 
overtures  were  not  considered,  and  this  resolution,  recom- 
mended to  you  by  the  majority  report,  was  made  irre- 
spective of  those  matters  which  you  referred  to  us  for 


134         ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 

information  ;  and  without  regarding  those  facts  the  ma- 
jority has  told  you  to  determine  that  this  case  should  be 
entertained,  and  issued,  and  put  on  trial  before  you,  be- 
fore you  have  the  facts  in  the  case  and  before  the  Judicial 
Committee  have  heard  the  appellants  in  the  case. 

"  You  will  also  observe  that  the  majority  report  is  con- 
tradictory.    Its  first  recommendation  is  this: 

"  '  We  recommend  to  the  General  Assembly  that  the 
appeal  be  entertained  and  the  Assembly  proceed  to  issue 
the  case.' 

"  If  you  adopt  that  first  recommendation,  you  have  de- 
cided the  whole  case  before  you  have  it.  Then  here  is 
another  resolution  interjected  which  seems  to  contradict 
that  : 

"'  We  recommend  that  the  appeal  shall  be  and  hereby 
is  entertained  and  the  case  proceed  to  trial  pursuant  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.' 

"  If  the  first  recommendation  of  the  majority  report 
were  simply  that  the  report  was  found  in  order,  and  that 
the  Assembly  proceed  to  hear  all  the  parties,  and  if  it 
were  then  stated  that  we  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  to  follow  it  after  due  notice,  there  would 
be  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  minority.  But  by  the 
terms  of  the  resolution,  it  is  desired  to  commit  the  com- 
mittee to  a  decision  in  advance. 

"  I  will  say  frankly  that  some  few  members  of  the 
committee  desired  to  have  a  reference  to  this,  but  they 
did  not  deem  it  proper  to  prejudge  the  case  by  asking 
the  Assembly  to  consider  that  matter,  they  did  not  pre- 
sume to  ask  the  whole  committee  to  bring  in  such  a 
recommendation.  They  wanted  the  case  presented  on 
its  merits,  as  a  matter  of  law,  to  the  Assembly  in  order 
that  there  might  be  no  complaint  of  unfairness. 

"  Here  are  the  names  of  sixteen  of  the  most  honor- 


ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL        I35 

able  gentlemen  in  the  Assembly  written  to  their  decision 
beforehand,  to  the  effect  that  they  believe  that  this  ap- 
peal should  be  entertained  and  issued  in  this  General 
Assembly.  What  would  you  think  of  a  judge  who 
should  give  a  written  opinion  to  a  party  on  appeal  that 
his  appeal  should  be  sustained  ?  What  would  you  think 
if  that  judge  should  say :  '  I  give  you  a  written  opinion 
that  your  appeal  shall  be  sustained ;  I  will  now  proceed 
to  take  my  place  on  the  bench  and  listen  to  the  parties, 
and  give  my  decision  subsequently  '  ? 

"  Here  are  the  judges  who  are  to  sit  in  this,  the  high- 
est court  of  the  Church,  who  are  entitled  to  sit  and  vote 
in  this  Church  on  this  very  question,  Shall  the  appeal  be 
entertained  ?  It  is  found  valid  as  to  law  and  order  ;  they 
have  decided  beforehand  that  it  shall  be ;  they  have  put 
their  names  to  it  to  say  that  it  shall  be  ;  and  then  follow 
the  recommendation  to  sit  as  judges  in  the  very  court 
that  is  to  listen  to  the  appellant  and  to  decide  the  very 
facts  in  the  case. 

"  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  the  minority  respectfully 
ask  that  the  majority  report  be  amended  to  conform  to 
what  is  evidently  the  teaching  of  the  law  in  this  case ; 
that  the  case  be  heard  simply  on  its  merits,  without  be- 
ing hampered  by  a  previous  judgment  on  the  part  of  the 
Judicial  Committee." 

It  is  evident  that  the  majority  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee recommended  the  entertainment  of  the  Appeal  be 
fore  the  appellee  was  heard,  and  that  they  also  proposed 
to  so  limit  him  as  to  time,  as  to  prevent  an  adequate 
presentation  of  his  case.  After  private  remonstrance 
with  them  and  discussion,  the  Judicial  Committee  on 
May  24th  unanimously  recommended  to  amend  their 
report  as  follows : 


l$Q  ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 

"The  Judicial  Committee  unanimously  recommend  : 

"  I.  That  the  appellants  be  allowed,  if  they  so  desire,  one  hour 
in  which  to  present  their  case  at  the  beginning. 

"  2,  The  appellee  having  mformed  the  Chairman  of  the  Judi- 
cial Committee  that  he  would  probably  need  five  hours  to  pre- 
sent his  defense  of  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  and  his  reply  to 
the  appellants,  that  five  hours  shall  be  allowed  him,  should  he 
wish  to  occupy  so  much  time. 

"  3.  That  the  appellants  be  allowed  two  hours  to  reply  to  the 
appellee,  the  time  to  be  extended,  should  they  request  it,  not  to 
exceed,  however,  the  limit  of  time  allowed  to  the  appellee." 

On  motion  the  Judicial  Committee  was  allowed  to 
amend  its  report  as  indicated. 

May  26th. 

After  the  debate  a  resolution  was  offered  in  accord- 
ance with  the  majority  report : 

"Resolved,  That  the  appeal  from  the  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  case  of  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  is  hereby  entertained  ;  and  it  is  ordered  that  the 
case  proceed  to  trial  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline." 

An  amendment  was  offered : 

"  Resolved^  That  the  four  hours  assigned  for  discussion  by  the 
Assembly  having  terminated,  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Assem- 
bly on  the  question  of  the  entertainment  of  the  Appeal,  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  that  the  whole  case  be  and  is  hereby  referred 
to  the  Synod  of  New  York  for  its  adjudication  at  its  next  regular 
meeting." 

A  motion  was  immediately  made  to  lay  the  amendment 
on  the  table.  This  was  carried  by  a  viva  voce  vote.  A  divi- 
sion was  called  for  and  the  moderator  declared  that  the 
majority  was  in  favor  of  laying  it  on  the  table,  but  re- 
fused to  count  the  votes.     The    ayes  and  noes  were 


ENTERTAINMENT  OF  THE  APPEAL 


137 


called  for  on  the  original  motion, 
vote  of  405  to  145. 


It  was  carried  by  a 


Synod. 

Atlantic 

Baltimore   

Yea. 

. .    12 
. ..  10 

Nay. 

California 

..   I"? 

3 

2 
I 

I 
6 

Catawba 

China 

Colorado  

Illinois 

India 

Indiana 

..     8 
. .     2 

•  .     7 
..19 
. .     2 
. .   II 

Indian  Territory. . 

jowa   

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

..     8 
••    23 
. .    14 
..     6 
. .    II 
10 

I 

4 

9 
10 

Missouri 

...  18 

Synod.  Yea. 

Nebraska 9 

New  Jersey 20 

New  Mexico 4 

*New  York 31 

North  Dakota 5 

Ohio 36 

Oregon 6 

Pennsylvania J7 

South  Dakota 10 

Tennessee 5 

Texas 5 

Utah 7 

Washington 7 

Wisconsin 9 


Nay. 
2 

14 

2 

I 
10 

2 
5 


—        Totals 405      145 

The   report   of   the  majority  of  the  committee  was 
then  adopted  as  a  whole. 


*  Presbytery  of  New  York  not  voting. 


IV. 


ARGUMENT  OF  PROF.   BRIGGS  AGAINST  SUSTAINING 
THE   APPEAL. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  : 

I  wish  to  make  a  few  preliminary  statements  for  the 
information  of  the  house,  and  the  gentlemen  of  the 
press,  and  the  stenographer. 

First,  I  waive  the  reading  of  the  records,  although  I 
feel  very  deeply  that  the  records  contain  my  defence  in 
its  fullness,  including  the  printed  document  called  The 
Defence,  also  the  volume  entitled  The  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch,  which  is  a  part  of  the  defence,  and  the 
volume  on  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Rcasoji,  which 
was  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  a  part 
of  the  evidence,  and  also  all  of  the  evidence  which  I  sub- 
mitted to  the  Pfesbytery  of  New  York  in  the  trial.  But 
the  reading  of  all  that  defence  and  all  that  evidence 
would  consume  a  great  many  hours,  and  I  have  taken  it 
for  granted  that  this  defence  and  the  evidence,  having 
been  sent  by  mail  to  every  commissioner  of  this  Assem- 
bly, as  honorable  men  they  have  read  it,  and  it  would 
only  be  necessary  for  me  in  argument  to  call  attention  to 
what  I  regarded  as  the  essential  parts  thereof. 

Second,  I  have  endeavored  to  save  the  time  of  the 
(138) 


ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL        139 

house  as  far  as  possible  in  my  argument.  Therefore  I 
have  gone  over  it  and  I  have  cut  it  up  and  readjusted  so 
many  parts  of  it  that  I  can  answer  the  question  of  the 
stated  clerk  that  not  even  the  copy  which  is  in  my 
hands  can  altogether  be  relied  upon  as  giving  to  the  sten- 
ographer the  argument  which  I  am  now  to  make,  be- 
cause it  is  necessary,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
in  which  I  am  now  placed,  to  make  some  portions  of  my 
argurnent  purely  extempore. 

Let  me  say,  in  the  third  place,  that  there  are  so  many 
of  these  specifications  of  error  which  concern  especially  the 
presbytery  of  New  York,  that  I  feel  it  is  a  serious  burden 
that  it  should  be  laid  upon  me  to  defend  the  presbytery. 
I  wish  that  the  commissioners  of  the  presbytery  had 
more  time  to  defend  the  presbytery  with  reference  to 
these  matters.  But  I  feel  that  whatever  opinion  you 
may  have  as  to  the  larger  portion  of  the  specifications, 
under  the  grounds  of  appeal,  that  if  you  sustain  nearly 
all  of  them,  you  still  would  have  no  reason  whatever  to 
make  any  change  in  the  verdict,  and  that  alone  is  what 
the  appellee  has  to  do  with.  At  the  same  time  let  me 
say  one  word  to  this  body  as  a  precaution.  In  view  of 
my  experience  in  the  last  General  Assembly,  I  will  state 
very  frankly  to  you  what  my  fear  is.  If  I  could  have 
three  or  four  of  the  elders  and  lawyers  who  thus  far 
have  voted  against  me  in  this  body  rise  up  in  the  debate 
and  inform  you  what  portions  of  these  specifications 
were  illegal,  I  think  I  could  be  content  to  leave  the 
most  of  them  for  the  judgment  of  the  house.  I  do  not 
see  how  I  can  spend  the  time  to  go  into  all  of  them  in  a 
sufficient  manner.  The  peril  of  the  situation  is  this, 
brethren.  I  ask  you  to  guard  yourselves  against  it,  as 
judges  of  this  court,  that,  when  it  comes  to  a  vote  and 
you  are  weary  with  the  long  discussion  of  the  parties 


140        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

and  the  debate,  you  shall  not  rush  on  without  thought 
and  sustain  one  specification  after  another  without 
giving  it  the  due  consideration  that  it  requires,  lest 
you  may  make  the  mistake  of  establishing  a  very  unfor- 
tunate precedent,  which  may  not  hurt  the  defendant, 
whose  sole  interest  is  in  the  merits  of  the  case,  but 
which  may  do  grave  injustice  to  appellees  who  may  have 
the  misfortune  at  some  subsequent  time  to  argue  their 
cases  before  future  General  Assemblies.  With  these 
preliminary  statements  I  shall  enter  upon  my  argument. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  A  inerica  : 

You  have  overcome  the  objections  to  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  appeal  presented  to  you  by  the  appellee ; 
you  have  summoned  him  to  resist  the  sustaining  of  the 
appeal.  He  cannot  enter  upon  this  task  without  a  dis- 
tinct reservation  of  rights.  He  does  not  consent  to 
your  entertainment  of  the  appeal.  He  still  claims,  not- 
withstanding your  action,  that  the  appeal  is  not  so  much 
against  the  final  judgment  as  against  action  supplement- 
ary thereto ;  that  no  appeal  is  lawful  by  a  public  prose- 
cutor against  a  verdict  of  acquittal ;  that  the  appellants 
are  not  an  original  party ;  and  that  the  synod  of  New 
York  has  the  rightful  jurisdiction  of  this  case. 

The  appeal  is  urged  on  the  basis  of  thirty-four  specifi- 
cations grouped  under  five  grounds.  These  grounds 
charge  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  with  doing  every 
wrong  that  could  be  done  according  to  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline,— "  irregularity  in  the  proceedings,"  "  receiving 
improper  testimony,"  "  manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the 
conduct  of  the  case,"  "  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  deci- 
sion." The  presbytery  of  New  York  must  be  a  very  in- 
considerate and  wicked   body  if  it  could  make  so  many 


ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL        141 

blunders  and  do  such  grave  injustice  to  these  five  inno- 
cent presbyters  whom  it  appointed  to  "  arrange  and  pre- 
pare the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Briggs." 

It  would  weary  you  to  go  over  these  thirty-four  speci- 
fications in  the  order  in  which  the  appellants  present 
them.  It  would  be  profitless  to  test  the  same  objec- 
tions three,  four,  and  five  times  under  the  different 
heads.  We  shall  consider  each  objection  once  only  in 
its  appropriate  place  and  inquire  whether  it  gives  any  of 
the  alleged  grounds  for  sustaining  the  appeal. 

The  specifications  have  been  examined  in  order  to  de- 
termine whether  there  was  any  principle  of  arrangement, 
chronological,  logical,  rhetorical,  or  sensational,  but,  so 
far  as  can  be  seen,  their  only  arrangement  is  a  promis- 
cuous one.  To  follow  it  would  be  to  get  us  into  the 
same  intricacy  and  confusion  of  mind  in  which  the  ap- 
pellants themselves  seem  to  be  involved. 

The  appellee  therefore  proposes  to  arrange  all  their 
specifications  of  objection  in  chronological  order  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  several  stages  of  procedure  in  the 
court  of  the  presbytery.  This  will  enable  us  to  test 
every  matter  complained  of  in  the  midst  of  the  circum- 
stances which  gave  it  birth. 

1.— THE   ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY   UPON   THE  PRELIMINARY 
OBJECTIONS  OF  THE  DEFENDANT. 

The  appellants  present  seven  specifications  of  objection 
under  three  grounds  against  four  different  actions  of  the 
presbytery  upon  the  preliminary  objections  of  the  de- 
fendant. The  appellee,  when  we  were  considering  the 
Entertainment  of  the  Appeal,  called  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  presbytery  had  overcome  five  of  his  pre- 
liminary objections,  and  that  he  and  others,  his  co-com- 


142        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

plainants,  made  five  complaints  to  the  synod  of  New- 
York  against  these  actions  of  presbytery.  You  have  de- 
cided to  do  the  great  injustice  of  entertaining  the  objec- 
tions of  the  appellants  to  four  actions  of  the  presbytery 
without  entertaining  the  objections  of  the  appellee  to 
five  actions  of  the  presbytery. 

The  actions  of  the  presbytery  which  are  presented  by 
the  appellants  as  grounds  of  appeal  are,  (i)  striking  out 
Charge  IV.  from  the  Charges  prepared  by  the  commit- 
tee;  (2)  striking  out  Charge  VII. ;  (3)  transferring  the 
proofs  from  Scripture  and  Confession  from  the  specifi- 
cations to  the  Charges;  and  (4)  requiring  a  vote  on  each 
item  of  the  Charges. 

I .  Striking  out  Charges  IV.  and  VI T. 

It  will  save  time  to  discuss  the  two  rejected  Charges 
together. 

The  General  Assembly  should  now  carefully  consider 
the  preliminary  objections  to  the  Amended  Charges  made 
by  the  defendant.  Among*  other  things  he  said  :  [See 
The  Case  against  Prof.  Briggs,  Part  II.,  pp.  57,  58,  from 
which  the  citation  was  made  of  all  matter  within  the 
sentences  given  below : 

"  I  object  to  the  amended  charges  that  they  do  not  comply 
with  the  law  respecting  amendment,  and  that  they  violate  the  ex- 
press directions  of  the  last  General  Assembly But,  so  far 

as  I  am  concerned,  I  shall  waive  this  objection  as  regards  six  of 
these  new  charges,  and  make  my  stand  against  two  of  them."] 

The  defendant  would  have  resisted  all  of  the  Charges 
as  insufificient  in  form  and  legal  effect  on  this  ground, 
that  their  general  nature  had  been  changed,  if  it  had  not' 
been  for  the  evident  desire  on  the  part  of  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  also  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
that  the  merits  of  the  case  should  be  reached  as  soon  as 


STRIKING  OUT  CHARGES  IV.   AND   VII.  jlS 

possible.  Therefore  the  defendant  waived  everything 
he  could  rightfully  waive.  He  took  his  stand  on  the 
illegality  of  two  of  the  Charges,  not  merely  because  the 
general  nature  of  them  had  been  changed,  but  because 
they  were  really  new  Charges,  and  Charges  which  im- 
peached his  veracity. 

I  shall  simply  repeat  to  the  General  Assembly  what 
has  been  said  to  the  Presbytery : 

[See  The  Case  agaitist  Prof.  Briggs,  Part  II.,  pp.  61-65, 
from  which  citation  was  made  of  all  the  matter  within 
the  following  sentences : 

"  Two  charges  remain  to  be  considered,  namely,  4  and  7.  I 
object  to  them  on  two  grounds,  (i)  These  are  new  charges, 
which  so  change  the  general  nature  of  the  original  charges  that 
they  cannot  legally  be  allowed  ;  and  (2)  that  it  is  not  in  the 
mterests  of  justice  that  such  charges  as  these  should  be  approved 

by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York I  ask  the  Presbytery, 

in  view  of  these  disclaimers,  if  it  is  just,  if  it  is  honorable,  if  it  is  in 
accordance  with  Christian  courtesy  and  gentlemanly  propriety, 
for  the  prosecution  to  make  such  charges  against  me .''  "  ] 

Judge,  ye  ministers  and  elders  of  this  supreme  court 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  whether  the  Presbytery  did 
right  or  not  in  refusing  to  try  these  Charges. 

Dr.  Alexander  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved^  That  the  Presbytery,  in  consideration  of  objections 
offered  by  the  accused,  require  the  committee  to  amend  the 
charges  and  specifications  by  striking  out  charges  4  and  7." 

Mr.  McCook  of  the  prosecuting  committee  then  said  : 

"  I  therefore  suggest,  as  the  time  for  adjournment  has  arrived, 
that  the  Committee  be  given  to-night  to  examine  and  read  what 
Dr.  Briggs  has  said  with  reference  to  charges  4  and  7,  and,  if  we 
can,  in  a  most  careful  and  conscientious  desire  to  save  the  time 
of  this  body  and  to  conserve  the  truth,  remove  those  charges, 
why,  we  will  be  very  glad  to  do  so."  (Stenographical  Report, 
p.  154.) 


144        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE   APPEAL 

Dr.  Alexander  said  at  the  beginning  of  the  next 
session : 

*'  It  will  be  remembered  that  last  evenmg  the  counsel  of  the 
committee  asked  for  delay,  m  the  hope  that  upon  a  review  of 
their  charges  they  might  find  that  they  could  consistently  drop 
the  two  referred  to  in  my  resolution.  I  am  prepared  to  give  way 
to  the  committee  in  order  to  hear  whether  they  have  concluded 
to  do  that,  or  not,  and  for  that  purpose  only."  (Stenographical 
Report,  p.  167.) 

Mr.  McCook,  instead  of  giving  the  decision  of  the 
committee  on  the  matter  referred  to  them,  went  into  an 
elaborate  argument  against  removing  Charges  IV. 
and  VII. 

During  the  remarks  of  Mr.  McCook,  Dr.  Alexander 
interposed : 

"  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  Col.  McCook,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  he  is  doing  something  very  much  more  than  that  for  which 
I  yielded  the  floor  to  him.  What  I  yieldea  to  him  for  was  to 
ascertain  what  the  conclusion  of  the  committee  had  been  in  thif> 
case ;  and  now  he  seems  to  be  making  an  elaborate  argument 
against  the  objection  ofifered  by  Dr.  Briggs."     (p.  176.) 

Dr.  Briggs  also  interposed  with  an  objection : 

"  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wish  to  record  an  objection  now  in  order 
that  I  may  put  it  in  my  appeal.  I  wish  to  record  my  objection 
now  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  yesterday  were  heard  m 
response  to  my  preliminary  objection,  and  you  are  now  giving 
them  a  second  opportunity  to  respond  without  my  consent." 
(p.  182.) 

At  last  Dr.  Alexander  interposed  again  and  insisted  : 

"  I  msist,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  this  is  trespassing  entirely 
beyond  what  courtesy  would  require  me  to  do  in  yielding  the- 
floor  to  Col.  McCook.  He  has  not  only  answered  the  question, 
which  I  yielded  the  floor  to  him  to  allow  him  to  answer,  but  he 
has  made  an  elaborate  defence  against  the  objections  made,  and 
now  he  is  proceeding  apparently  to  discuss  the  question  as  to 


STRIKING  OUT  CHARGES  IV.   AND   VII.  I45 

the  orderliness  of  our  proceeding.  I  cannot  yield  the  floor 
further." 

"  Mr.  McCooK  :  I  simply  wished,  in  conclusion,  to  make  a  sug- 
gestion in  the  way  of  orderly  procedure  which  might  save  time. 

"  Dr.  Alexander  :  You  see,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  the  purpose 
of  this  is  not,  as  we  had  supposed,  to  give  opportunity  for  the 
withdrawal  of  forces  at  certain  points,  but  to  strengthen  those 
forces  and  to  forge  new  weapons.  I  yielded  the  floor  in  the 
hope  that  the  Committee  might  see  their  way  clear  to  what 
seems  to  me  a  just  thmg,  and  what  certainly  would  be  a  graceful 
thing.  They  have  not  seen  fit  to  do  so.  I  cannot  but  feel  that 
the  Committee  have  had  full  consideration  given  them.  They 
have  brought  before  us  what  is  substantially  a  new  case.  It  is 
manifestly  a  much  stronger  case  than  the  one  which  they  pre- 
sented originally.  They  now  have  six  broad  accusations,  upon 
which  the  accused  consents  to  go  to  trial.  They  have  had  the 
opportunity  of  presenting  two  arguments  in  answer  to  the  objec- 
tions which  have  been  made,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  nothing 
more  can  be  asked  on  their  side.  On  the  other  hand,  what  is  the 
position  of  the  accused  ?  He  has  been  put  a  second  time  in 
jeopardy.  Some  of  us,  in  our  desire  to  reach  the  merits  of  this 
case  and  obey  the  mandate  of  the  higher  court,  have  stifled  our 
convictions  with  reference  to  the  constitutional  order  of  pro- 
cedure, and  now  the  Committee  insists  upon  pressing  these 
charges,  apparently  with  the  desire  to  stop  every  possible 
avenue  of  escape.  And  why  do  they  refuse  to  drop  these 
charges  }  In  order  that  they  may  require  the  accused  to  plead 
to  charges  which  he  has  distinctly  and  solemnly  and  repeatedly 
repudiated.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  object  of  the  Committee, 
like  the  object  of  this  body,  should  be  not  to  convict  the  accused 
if  it  is  possible  to  convict  him.  but  to  clear  him  if  it  is  pos- 
sible to  clear  him  consistently  with  truth  and  law  and 
righteousness. 

"  I  wish  simply  to  add,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  should  be  the  desire  of  the  Committee  and  the  desire  of 
this  house  to  drop  such  charges  as  these  when  the  brother 
accused  comes  forward  and  says,  as  he  has  said  to  us  :  '  Brethren, 
you  have  misconceived  me ;  I  do  not  hold  these  views,  and  I 
never  did  hold  these  views.'  Now,  if  there  is  any  apparent  in- 
consistency betwen  phrases  in  the  Inaugural  Address  and  that 


146        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

statement  of  his,  why,  let  him  give  his  explanation  as  a  peer 
among  his  peers,  and  do  not  frame  them  into  an  indictment 
against  him  to  which  he  is  called  upon  to  plead  before  this 
tribunal  where  he  is  on  trial  for  his  ecclesiastical  life."  (Steno- 
graphical  Report,  pp.  186-188.) 

The  motion  of  Dr.  Alexander  was  divided,  and  on  sep- 
arate votes  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  were  thrown  out. 
This  decision  of  the  Presbytery  ought  to  have  settled 
the  matter  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery.  But  in  fact, 
Mr.  McCook  in  his  argument  in  behalf  of  the  Piosecu- 
tion  argued  in  behalf  of  the  Charges  which  were  thrown 
out,  as  the  defendant  showed  in  his  Defence:  [pp.  xii-xvi.] 
So  also  Dr.  Lampe  argued  on  these  same  Charges  under 
the  guise  of  a  rebuttal.  The  defendant  took  exception 
to  this  argument  as  follows : 

"  (4).  Finally,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 
afternoon  Dr.  Lampe  has  reiterated  the  argument  on  the  seventh 
Charge  that  you  threw  out,  and  has  reiterated  it  in  a  most  offen- 
sive form.  Do  you  allow  a  committee  claiming  to  be  appointed 
by  this  Presbytery,  and  to  represent  you,  to  override  a  ruling 
which  you  have  distinctly  made  ?  I  call  for  the  justice  of  the 
court  I  appeal  to  the  sense  of  honor  of  the  judges.  In  this  ar- 
gument on  the  seventh  Charge  (which  was  ruled  out)  he  attrib- 
utes to  me  the  words  of  my  beloved  teacher,  Dr.  Dorner.  when 
I  have  expressly  disclaimed  in  my  argument,  as  you  will  remem- 
ber, holding  that  particular  phase  of  his  doctrine.  It  is  true  that 
m  my  book  entitled  'Whither,'  on  pages  260  and  261,  I  quoted 
an  extract  from  Dr.  Dorner  with  reference  to  those  who  had 
passed  into  the  middle  state,  in  which  he  said  a  few  words  about 
the  condition  of  the  impenitent  there,  and  expresses  the  hope 
that  some  of  them  may  be  saved  ;  but  as  the  greater  part  of  the 
extract  (and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  cited  it)  refers  to  the  pro- 
gressive sanctification  of  believers  who  have  gone  into  the  middle, 
state,  I  did  not  indorse  every  word  that  Dr.  Dorner  said,  in 
'  Whither  ' ;  nor  did  I  think  it  necessary  for  me  to  disclaim  that 
portion  of  his  doctrine  when  I  said,  '  Lest  any  one  should  stum- 
ble at  these  excellent  thoughts,  owing  to  the  name  of  Dorner,  1 


STRIKING  OUT  CflARGES  IV.   AND  VII.  14'j' 

shall  conclude  with  the  wise  words  of  John  Wesley.'  The  pre- 
vious context  in  which  this  passage  was  contained  shows  suffi- 
ciently well  that  I  had  been  teaching  the  doctrine  of  progressive 
sanctification  after  death  of  believers,  and  had  not  thought  of 
any  change  for  unbelievers  so  far  as  their  redemption  is  con- 
cerned. And  in  the  argument  which  I  made  before  you  I  took 
the  precaution,  lest  any  one  should  misunderstand  me,  when  I 
quoted  this  extract  from  Dorner  again,  to  disclaim  that  specific 
teaching  of  Dorner  which  Dr.  Lampe  ha^  again,  and  in  spite  of 
my  disclaimer,  attributed  to  me  this  afternoon."  {The  Defence, 
pp.   192-193-) 

In  order  to  overcome  the  force  of  these  unlawful  argu- 
ments and  any  possible  injury  he  might  suffer  from  them 
in  the  minds  of  the  court,  the  defendant  in  the  course  of 
his  argument  briefly  said  : 

"When  I  indorse  the  doctrine  of  Dorner  as  regards  the  pro- 
gressive sanctification  of  believers  after  death,  that  does  not  im- 
ply that  I  hold  with  him  that  those  who  die  impenitent  here  and 
go  to  the  world  of  the  lost  may  yet  be  redeemed  from  their  lost 
condition  in  the  Middle  State.  Many  holy  and  wise  men  hold 
that  doctrine,  and  God  forbid  that  I  or  any  other  should  chal- 
lenge their  right  to  their  opinion.  O  that  I  could  agree  with 
them  !  I  would  gladly  make  many  sacrifices  if  1  could  honestly 
indulge  in  such  a  comfortable  hope.  But  I  do»not,  1  cannot.  I 
exercise  my  right  in  disclaiming  this  opinion,  and  I  also  exercise 
my  right  of  Christian  charity  in  refusing  to  condemn  them  as 
enemies  of  Christ  on  account  of  it."     {The  Defence,  pp.  176-177.) 

Dr.  Lampe  has  argued  this  afternoon  that  I  teach  that 
those  who  enter  the  future  life  impenitent  will  have  an 
opportunity  of  beginning  a  Christian  life  there.  I  have 
never  taught  any  such  thing.  I  have  distinctly  repudi- 
ated the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory.  I  have 
distinctly  and  over  and  over  again  repudiated  the  doc- 
trine of  second  probation. 

I  have  repudiated  the  doctrine  that  there  is  any  regen- 
eration after  death  for  those  who  die  impenitent.     I  have 


148        ARGUMENT   AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

distinctly  disclaimed  that  there  is  any  regeneration  after 
death  for  those  who  die  unregenerate,  or  that  there  is 
any  beginning  of  their  Christian  life  after  death.  My 
doctrine  of  redemption  after  death  concerns  alone,  in  all 
the  statements  that  I  have  made  respecting  it,  those  who 
die  as  believers,  those  who  enter  the  future  life  as  born 
again  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this 
world. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  appellants  that  because  they  in 
their  original  charges  used  the  words  "  state  and  charac- 
ter of  believers  after  death,"  they  had  a  right  in  their 
new  charge  to  refer  to  the  change  of  character  of  un- 
believers after  death.  I  cannot  see  any  propriety  in  that. 
They  made  no  statement  in  their  original  Charge  upon 
my  views  as  to  eschatology,  that  I  taught  that  unbeliev- 
ers changed  their  condition  after  death.  My  complaint 
is  that  they  have  introduced  that  new  Charge  into  the 
seventh  of  these  Amended  Charges. 

You  have  heard  that  I  proclaim  the  dreadful  heresy 
of  race  redemption  ;  whereas,  if  you  will  look  in  my  In- 
augural Address  you  will  see  that  my  reference  to  race 
redemption  is 'connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the  incar- 
nation of  our  Lord.  The  question  is,  what  is  race  re- 
demption ?  My  brethren  take  too  narrow  a  view  of  re- 
demption. They  are  thinking  of  redemption  as  nothing 
more  than  deliverance  from  hell  fire  or  as  the  beginning 
of  a  Christian  life,  whereas  I  have  been  using  "  redemp- 
tion "  in  my  Inaugural  and  in  my  writings  in  its  more  ex- 
tended sense,  as  embracing,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  the  entire  process,  from  the  be- 
ginning in  regeneration  until  the  last  stage,  when  the 
glorified  church  rejoices  in  the  presence  of  the  bride- 
groom. If  you  take  into  consideration  the  meaning 
which  I  attach  to  redemption — and  I  beg  leave  to  aflfirm 


STRIKING   OUT  CHARCxES   IV.   AND   VII.  I49 

that  that  is  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  term — you  will  see 
that  my  views  on  this  subject  have  been  consistent  and 
that  I  have  never  taught  what  they  charge  me  with 
teaching  under  this  seventh  Charge.  Would  that  I  could 
teach  such  a  comfortable  doctrine ;  and  if  the  time  ever 
comes  that  I  can,  I  will  gladly  lay  down  my  ministry  in 
the  Piesbyterian  Church  and  go  forth  to  teach  the 
hope  of  salvation  of  some  of  those  who  apparently  have 
died  without  regeneration  in  this  world.  But  I  do  not 
hold  that  belief  now ;   I  cannot. 

With  reference  to  the  fourth  charge,  predictive  proph- 
ec5^  let  me  say  that  I  have  been  teaching  Messianic 
prophecy  for  twenty  years  to  a  thousand  Christian  min- 
isters who  are  now  at  work  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  I 
published  a  work  on  "  Messianic  Prophecy  "  after  many 
years  of  teaching  and  careful  revision  of  my  lectures. 
This  book  has  been  translated  into  the  Japanese  lan- 
guage and  is  now  in  use  in  several  theological  colleges 
in  Japan.  They  see  no  error  in  it,  and  it  has  received 
the  commendation  of  no  less  a  man  than  William  E. 
Gladstone,  and  the  hearty  approval  of  no  less  evangeli- 
cal a  man  than  the  late  Dr.  Franz  Delitzsch,  of  Leipsic.  I 
shall  read  from  the  context. 

A  Member  :  When  was  that  book  written? 

Dr.  Briggs  :  Several  years  ago.  I  forget  the  date 
now. 

Dr.  Brown  :  In  1886,  was  it  not? 

Dr.  Briggs  :  Yes,  1886,  I  think.  Now  I  read  from 
the  context : 

"  We  are  met  on  the  threshold  of  Hebrew  prediction  with  the 
bold  statements  of  Kuenen,  that  Hebrew  prediction  has  been 
proved  false  by  history  in  so  many  particulars  that  the  system 
cannot  be  regarded  as  true  and  divine.  Its  predictions  have  not 
been  fulfilled  in  the  time  allotted  them,  and  the  fulfilment  is  no 


150        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

longer  possible.  The  reverse  of  the  predicted  has  often  hap-. 
pened, 

"  Hebrew  prediction  has  been  disproved  by  events,  and  it  must 
take  its  place  with  all  other  prophecy  as  a  compound  of  truth 
and  error,  of  blasted  hopes  and  disappointed  expectations.  These 
charges  wil!  not  bear  serious  examination.  They  really  concern 
only  the  scholastic  theory  of  prophecy  and  misinterpretations  of 
predictions. 

"  The  scholastic  theory  of  prophecy,  which  was  essentially 
Montanistic,  failed  to  distinguish  between  the  form  and  the  sub- 
stance of  prophecy.  It  sought  above  all  verbal  accuracy  and  cir- 
cumstantial and  detailed  fulfilment.  It  sought  by  strained  inter- 
pretations to  identify  prophecy  and  history. 

"  The  efforts  to  show  the  literal  fulfilment  of  the  predictions 
of  Daniel  in  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  exile  to  the  advent, 
in  its  dreadful  inconsistencies  of  interpretation,  have  so  dis- 
graced the  science  of  Biblical  Interpretation  that  it  is  a  marvel 
that  the  book  has  survived  such  cruel  manipulation.  The  vain, 
efforts  to  find  Christian  history  depicted  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
John  has  so  damaged  the  book  that  we  are  not  surprised  that 
€ven  Christian  scholars  should  have  abstained  from  its  study  as 
unprofitable. 

"  Predictive  prophecy  has  been  made  a  burden  to  apologetics 
by  the  abuse  that  has  been  made  of  it  by  self-constituted  de- 
fenders of  the  faith  and  presumptuous  champions  of  orthodoxy. 
It  is  necessary  that  evangelical  critics  should  rescue  predictive 
prophecy  from  the  hands  of  those  who  have  made  such  sad  mis- 
takes. 

"  Kuenen  has  taken  advantage  of  the  errors  of  the  scholastic 
theory  and  interpretation  of  predictive  prophecy,  and  has  dealt 
Hebrew  prediction  the  severest  blows  it  has  ever  received.  We 
shall  parry  these  blows  of  Kuenen  by  showing  that  they  have 
destroyed  the  .scholastic  theory,  but  they  have  not  in  the  slight- 
est degree  injured  Hebrew  prediction  as  such. 

"  Predictive  prophecy  has  its  necessary  forms  and  limitations, 
which  we  should  carefully  study  in  order  to  understand  it.  .We 
shall  first  distinguish  the  form  from  the  substance  of  the  predic- 
tion, and  then  present  the  necessary  limits  of  Hebrew  prediction  ; 
for  we  would  unfold  the  truth  which  Tholuck  has  so  well  ex- 
pressed when  he  says :  '  It  is  not  prediction  of  the  accidental. 


STRIKING  OUT  CHARGES  IV.   AND  VII.  15^ 

but  of  that  which  is  of  religious  necessity,  which  is  the  essential 
thing  in  Hebrew  prophecy.' 

"  Kuenen  has  the  right  of  it  over  against  the  scholastic  apol- 
ogists when  he  says :  When  they  assert  that  the  prophecies 
have  been  fulfilled  exactly  and  literally,  and  thence  deduce  far- 
reaching  consequences,  we  cannot  rest  satisfied  with  the  general 
agreement  between  the  prediction  and  the  historical  fact,  but 
must  note  also  along  with  that  the  deviation  in  details  as  often 
as  such  a  deviation  is  actually  apparent.' 

"  But  Kuenen  and  the  Scholastics  are  here  alike  in  error,  for 
the  prophecies  are  predictive  only  as  to  the  essential  and  the 
ideal  elements.  The  purely  formal  elements  belong  to  the  point 
of  view  and  coloring  of  the  individual  prophets.  We  are  not  to 
find  exact  and  literal  fulfilments  in  detail  or  in  general,  but  the 
fulfilment  is  limited,  as  the  prediction  is  limited,  to  the  essential 
ideal  contents  of  the  prophecy.  We  start  therefore  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  prediction,  and  thence  rise  through  several 
forms  of  prediction. 

"  The  future  judgment  and  redemption,  the  two  poles  of  pre- 
dictive policy,  are  necessarily  based  on  present  experience  of 
discipline  and  upon  the  history  of  redempti'^n  and  judicial  acts 
of  Jahveh  in  the  past.  Looking  forth  into  the  future,  prophetic 
prediction  clothes  and  represents  that  which  is  to  come  in  the 
scenery  and  language  familiar  to  it  in  the  present  and  in  the 
past.  The  most  suitable  events,  persons,  and  things  of  the  past 
and  the  present  are  employed.  Hence  the  type  or  the  symbol 
lies  at  the  basis  of  all  genuine  prediction."     (pp.  43-45.) 

This  is  the  passage  from  Kuenen  in  its  connections 
and  I  think  the  house  will  see  that  I  am  opposing 
Kuenen  and  endeavoring  to  state  the  evangelical  posi- 
tion on  which  the  whole  system  of  the  Messianic  proph- 
ecy of  the  Old  Testament  can  be  defended,  and  then  I 
go  to  the  Old  Testament  predictions  and  point  them 
forward  to  fulfilment  by  Jesus  Christ  in  history. 

Now  let  me  read  you  my  summing  up  of  Messianic 
prophecy : 

"  We  have  in  the  Messianic  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament 
an  organic  system   constantly  advancing  on  the  original  lines. 


152        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

and  expanding  into  new  and  more  comprehensive  phases  with 
the  progress  of  the  centuries.  Vast  and  complex  that  organism 
is, — so  complex  that  the  wisest  sages  of  Israel  could  not  compre- 
hend it, — as  vast  as  the  difference  between  a  divine  advent  and 
a  human  advent,  as  contrasted  as  a  suffering  and  reigning  Mes- 
siah, as  an  advent  of  grace  and  revival,  and  as  an  advent  of 
judgment  and  perdition  ;  and  yet  there  is  a  unity  in  all  this 
variety  and  complexity  that  no  one  could  discern  until  Jesus 
Christ  was  born,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh ;  until  He  passed 
through  the  experience  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  advanced  to 
His  throne  as  the  reigning  Messiah ;  until  the  advent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost  warned  of  the  advent  of  the  great  and 
terrible  judgment. 

"  In  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  key  of  the  Messianic  prophecy 
of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  found.  All  its  phases  find 
their  realization  in  His  unique  personality,  in  His  unique 
work,  and  in  His  unique  kingdom.  The  Messiah  of  prophecy 
appears  in  the  Messiah  of  history.  The  redemption  predicted 
as  the  completion  of  the  redemption  experienced  in  greater  and 
richer  fulness  in  the  successive  stages  of  the  old  covenant  is  at 
last  completed  in  the  Messiah  of  the  cross  and  of  the  throne  ;  in 
the  Lamb  that  was  slain  for  the  redemption  of  men,  but  who 
liveth  as  the  fountain  of  life,  and  the  owner  of  the  keys  of 
Hades. 

"  Hebrew  prophecy  vindicates  its  reality,  its  accuracy,  its  com- 
prehensive ideality  as  a  conception  of  the  divine  mind,  as  a 
deliverance  of  the  divine  energy,  as  a  system  constructed  by 
holy  men  who  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"  The  Messiah  of  prophecy  and  the  Messiah  of  history,  the 
redemption  of  Hebrew  prediction  and  the  redemption  of  Chris- 
tian possession,  are  not  diverse,  but  entirely  harmonious  in  the 
Lamb,  who  was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
but  was  manifest  in  these  last  times  of  its  history. 

"  For  it  was  the  same  divine  Being  who  devised  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  who  revealed  it  in  prophetic  prediction,  who 
pl-epared  for  it  in  the  development  of  history,  who  accomplished 
it  in  time  and  eternity.  Hebrew  prophecy  springs  from  divinity 
as  its  source  and  ever-flowing  inspiration,  and  it  points  to  divin- 
ity as  its  fruition  and  complete  realization. 

"  None  but  God  could  give  such  prophecy ;  none  but  God  can 


STRIKING  OUT  CHARGES  IV.   AND  VII.  153 

fulfil  such  prophecy.  The  ideal  of  prophecy  and  the  real  of  hi.story 
correspond  in  I-^im,  who  is  above  the  limits  of  time  and  space 
and  circumstance,  who  is  the  creator,  ruler,  and  saviour  of  the 
world,  and  who  alone  has  the  wisdom,  the  grace,  and  the  power 
to  conceive  the  idea  of  redemption,  and  then  accomplish  it  in 
reality  through  the  incarnation,  crucifixion,  resurrection,  ascen- 
sion, and  second  advent  of  His  only  begotten  and  well-beloved 
Son,  very  God  of  very  God,  the  Light  and  Life  and  Saviour  of 
the  world."     {Messianic  Prophecy,  pp.  497-499.) 

That  is  the  conclusion  of  my  whole  argument  on  the 
Messianic  predictions.  Need  I  argue  whether  I  hold 
the  views  imputed  to  me  or  not  ? 

We  have  gone  over  the  procedure  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  in  their  dealings  with  two  Charges,  which 
the  prosecution  strove  so  long  and  with  such  persistence 
to  have  accepted  by  the  presbytery  and  served  upon  the 
accused,  and  which  they  insisted  upon  arguing  in  spite 
of  the  presbytery.  Who  has  the  right  to  determine 
whether  charges  are  sufficient  ?  The  presbytery,  or  a 
committee  of  the  presbytery? 

A  MEMBER  :  We  have  listened  to  what  Dr.  Briggs  has 
said  on  that  subject,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  him  a 
question.  That  book  was  written  in  1886,  and  I  should 
like  to  ask  if  that  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Briggs  at  this 
time  ?    Does  he  subscribe  to  the  same  opinions  now  ? 

Dr.  Briggs  :  Certainly  I  do.  That  book  I  use  as  a 
text-book  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  where  it 
has  been  used  continuously  since  it  was  written.  Every 
senior  class  goes  over  it.  I  hold  the  same  views  pre- 
cisely.    I  have  not  changed  a  particle. 

Dr.  Briggs,  resuming:  And  if  a  Presbytery  decide  to 
serve  six  charges  and  not  to  serve  two  charges  is  it  not 
within  their  proper  functions  so  to  decide?  There  is  no 
right  of  appeal  against  it,  for  it  is  not  a  final  judgment. 
There  is  no  right  of  complaint,  because  the  supreme 
court   has   decided  that  a  complaint  cannot    be    taken 


154:         ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

against  a  court  for  exercising  its  discretion.  (Digest,  p. 
(>7']^  Therefore  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  refusing 
to  accept  these  Charges  and  serve  them  was  final.  But 
suppose  that  the  Presbytery  made  a  mistake  in  not  serv- 
ing these  Charges,  what  action  can  the  Assembly  law- 
fully take  in  the  case  ?  These  Charges  have  not  been 
served,  they  have  not  been  tried,  they  form  no  part  of  the 
final  judgment.  How  can  this  matter  be  appealed?  It 
cannot  be  shown  that  the  striking  out  of  these  Charges 
influenced  the  final  judgment  on  the  other  Charges  sub- 
mitted for  probation.  Would  you  send  them  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  for  trial  ?  This  is  the  most 
you  could  do.  You  cannot  try  these  two  Charges  which 
have  not  been  tried  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery,  any 
more  than  you  could  try  any  other  charges.  These 
Charges  are  not  under  your  jurisdiction.  There  is  no 
way  in  which  they  can  reach  your  jurisdiction  without  a 
trial  of  them  in  the  court  of  the  Presbytery. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  what  purpose  the  appellants  have 
in  mind  in  insisting  upon  these  Charges  after  the  Presby- 
tery refused  to  entertain  them.  They  bring  these  objec- 
tions under  five  Specifications  and  three  Grounds.  It  is 
claimed  by  the  appellants  that  the  striking  out  of  these 
charges  was  irregular  because  they  were  in  substance  an 
essential  part  of  the  original  Charges  and  Specifications. 
This  we  have  shown  not  to  be  the  case.  They  were  en- 
tirely new  charges  and  in  no  sense  amendments  of  the 
original  Charges  and  Specifications.  It  was  not  irregular 
for  the  Presbytery  to  exercise  the  discretion,  which  the 
General  Assembly  had  directed  them  to  use,  when  they 
instructed  the  Presbytery  "  to  permit  the  committee  to 
amend  the  Charges  and  Specifications,  not  changing  the 
general  nature  of  the  same."  The  General  Assembly 
did  not  direct  the  Presbytery  to  declare  any  charges  suf- 
ficient which  this  committee  might  submit ;  but  to  pass 


STRIKING  OUT  CHARGES  IV.   AND  VII.  155 

Upon  such  charges  and  determine  their  sufficiency,  de- 
termine those  which  were  sufficient  and  those  which 
were  not  sufficient.  The  Presbytery  did  exactly  what 
the  General  Assembly  directed  it  to  do.  It  determined 
the  sufficiency  of  six  of  the  Charges  and  the  insufficiency 
of  two  of  them.  Therefore  its  action  cannot  be  regarded 
as  irregular. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  prosecution  that  the  Presbytery 
declined  to  receive  important  testimony  when  they  re- 
fused to  permit  the  committee  to  prove  these  two  re- 
jected Charges  by  competent  evidence.  But  how  could 
the  Presbytery  permit  the  committee  to  present  evidence 
for  Charges  which  were  stricken  out  as  new  Charges  and 
as  insufficient?  The  Presbytery  could  not  do  so  without 
the  violation  of  law.  The  committee  did  not  ask  per- 
mission to  present  evidence  for  these  insufficient  charges, 
but  they  did  it  without  permission  and  in  a  manner  in- 
jurious to  the  accused,  and  to  which  the  accused  ob- 
jected and  took  exceptions. 

But  what  has  this  presentation  of  evidence  in  behalf 
of  Charges  which  were  thrown  out,  to  do  with  the  final 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  on  Charges  which  were 
tried?  The  Appeal  is  against  a  final  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  acquitting  Dr.  Briggs  of  six 
Charges  which  were  tried.  The  final  judgment  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Charges  which  were  thrown  out  and  not 
tried.  Therefore  even  if  the  Presbytery  did  wrong  in 
throwing  out  these  Charges  and  the  evidence  proffered 
therefor,  it  is  not  claimed  that  the  Presbytery  declined 
to  hear  competent  evidence  in  proof  of  the  Charges  sub- 
mitted for  probation,  and  upon  which  the  final  judgment 
was  pronounced,  and  therefore  the  whole  of  the  third 
Ground  of  appeal  must  be  stricken  out  as  altogether  ir- 
relevant to  the  final  judgment  upon  the  six  Charges  from 
which  the  appeal  was  taken. 


15G        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

It  is  also  claimed  by  the  appellants  that  the  Presby- 
tery manifested  prejudice  in  the  conduct  of  the  case  (IV. 
2)  when  it  gave  its  opinion  that  the  two  Charges  were 
new  Charges  and  should  be  thrown  out.  This  is  the  as- 
sertion of  the  committee.  But  it  is  without  proof. 
Which  was  the  more  likely  to  be  prejudiced,  the  com- 
mittee in  behalf  of  the  Charges  which  it  had  prepared  ; 
or  the  Presbytery  sitting  as  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
in  conscience  bound  to  determine  whether  the  Charges 
were  new  Charges  or  not  ?  The  General  Assembly  should 
not  discredit  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  by  imputing 
prejudice  to  the  Presbytery  unless  the  General  Assem- 
bly is  convinced  of  such  prejudice  by  insuperable  argu- 
ments. None  such  have  been  presented.  It  is  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  court  was  without  prejudice. 

2.    T7'ansfer  of  Proofs. 

The  appellants  object  to  irregularity  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  "  the  transference 
of  the  proofs  cited  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee  from 
the  Scriptures,  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Cate- 
chisms, from  the  Specifications  to  the  Charges."     (I.  3.) 

Listen  to  the  Preliminar){  Objection  of  the  accused : 

"  I  object  to  the  relevancy  of  all  the  proofs  from  Scripture, 
Confession,  and  Catechisms.  Let  me  clearly  set  before  you  what 
kind  of  proof  is  necessary  in  order  to  convict  me  of  heresy  under 
Presbyterian  law.  It  is  necessary  for  this  court,  if  you  would 
make  a  just  verdict  in  the  feair  of  God,  to  put  the  charges  and 
specifications  in  definite  forms  of  major  and  minor  premises. 
The  major  premise  or  charge  must  represent  that  certain  teach- 
ings are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  some  essential  doctrine  of  the 
Westminster  Standards  and  Holy  Scripture.  The  minor  premise 
or  specification  must  set  forth  some  statement  in  my  Inaugural 
Address,  interpreted  in  a  sense  to  which  I  consent,  which  is  in 
conflict  with  said  doctrine. 


TRANSFER  OF   PROOFS  I57 

"  Proof  from  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Westminster  Confession 
must  be  presented  under  the  charges  in  order  to  prove  that  the 
doctrines  asserted  in  the  charges  as  essential  doctrines  are  really 
essential  doctrines.  Under  the  specifications  the  prosecution 
are  shut  up  to  proof  from  my  Inaugural  that  I  teach  therein  the 
erroneous  doctrines  specified.  An  examination  of  the  charges 
and  specifications  shows  that  they  do  no  such  thing.  The  proofs 
from  Scripture  and  from  Confession  are  all  under  the  specifica- 
tions when  they  should  be  under  the  charges.  I  therefore  chal- 
lenge the  relevancy  of  all  the  proofs  offered  by  the  prosecution 
from  the  Confession  and  from  Holy  Scripture.  The  attention  of 
the  Presbytery  is  called  to  this  fault.  It  may  be  corrected  by  a 
simple  transfer  of  these  proofs  from  the  specifications  to  the 
charges  if  the  Presbytery  so  desire."     (The  Case,  Part  II.,  p.  54.) 

The  Presbytery  had  no  alternative  than  to  take  the 
action  which  they  took.  But  the  prosecution  paid  less 
attention  to  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  than  they  did 
to  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  striking  out  two  of 
the  Charges.  As  the  defendant  showed  in  his  defence, 
the  prosecution  pursued  their  own  way  and  the  Presby- 
tery did  not  interfere  with  them.  And  now  after  they 
have  exercised  themselves  in  this  license  and  rebellion, 
they  make  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  a  ground  of  ap- 
peal. If  it  was  a  lawful  ground  of  appeal — it  did  them 
no  harm,  they  have  no  grievance.  They  had  their  own 
way.  The  only  grievance  in  the  matter  was  suffered  by 
the  defendant,  who,  after  the  Presbytery  had  sustained 
his  objection,  saw  the  Presbytery  neglect  to  enforce  its 
decision  against  the  prosecution.  This  conduct  of  the 
prosecution  reminds  us  of  that  greedy  boy,  who  after  his 
father  had  told  him  not  to  eat  his  cake,  thought  he 
might  eat  it  and  have  it  too. 

3.  Itemizing  the  Charges. 
The  prosecution  represent  that  there  was  "  irregular- 
ity in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery,"  in  that  the 


158        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

Presbytery  required  that  each  item  in  Charges  I,,  II. y 

III.,  V.  and  VI.  should  be  voted  upon  separately.  (I.  12.) 
This  was  the  preliminary  objection  of  the  defendant : 
[See  The  Case  against  Prof.  Briggs,  Part  II.,  pp.  59- 

61,  from  which  citation  was  made  of  all  matter  between 

the  sentences  given  below  : 

"Charges  I.  and  II.  agree  in  alleging  conflict  with  the  essen- 
tial doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  that 
Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  and  the  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice."  ....  "The  only  thing  that  I  insist  upon,  in  the  interest  of 
justice,  is,  that  every  offence  alleged  against  me  shall  be  acted 
upon  by  a  separate  vote.  Only  in  this  way  can  you  comply  with 
the  law,  that  a  vote  on  each  charge  shall  be  separately  taken. 
Only  by  this  procedure  can  you  reach  a  just  verdict."] 

If  the  Presbytery  had  not  removed  this  preliminary 
objection,  it  would  have  acted  unfairly  toward  the  ac- 
cused. It  is  evident  that  the  Charges  were  made  to  con- 
vict the  accused  if  it  were  at  all  possible  to  convict. 
The  only  hope  the  prosecution  had  in  the  court  of  the 
Presbytery — the  only  hope  they  can  entertain  before 
fair-minded  judges,  is  to  gain  conviction  by  a  cumula- 
tive vote.  They  are  now  trying  to  secure  from  you  an 
endorsement  of  their  iniquity. 

But  consider  for  a  moment  what  would  be  involved  in 
sustaining  this  specification  of  objection  to  the  action  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  The  defendant  waived 
his  objection  to  six  of  the  Charges  on  the  express  condi- 
tion that  the  Presbytery  would  take  the  action  it  did 
take.  This  was  distinctly  understood  by  the  Presby- 
tery. Mr.  McCook  represented  in  his  rejoinder  that  the 
defendant  had  waived  his  objection  to  all  the  charges 
but  two  and  had  expressed  his  willingness  to  go  to  trial 
upon  them.  (p.  173.)  But  the  defendant  corrected  this 
statement  as  follows : 


TRANSFER  OF  PROOFS  15<> 

"  It  is  not  true  altogether  that  I  have  waived  objec- 
tion to  every  charge  but  two.  I  have  waived  it  under 
certain  conditions.  If  the  Presbytery  fulfil  these  con- 
ditions I  waive  ;  if  they  do  not,  I  do  not  waive."  (p.  191.) 

Further  on  in  the  debate  Dr.  Briggs  said : 
"  In  the  preparation  of  my  demurrer  I  considered  carefully  the 
Charges  as  a  pure  matter  of  ecclesiastical  law,  and  I  made  up  my 
mind  that  I  would  waive  every  point  I  could  in  order  to  save  the 
time  of  the  house  and  get  to  the  merits  of  the  case.  You  see 
that  I  waive  what  I  regard  as  substantial  objections  to  five  of  the 
charges.  The  objections  that  I  make  to  these  charges  are  :  That 
they  violate  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  their  reversal  of 
your  dismissal,  and  also  the  provision  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
which  requires  that  when  amendments  are  made  in  charges  the 
general  nature  thereof  shall  not  be  changed.  Now,  I  take  ex- 
ceptions— I  have  filed  preliminary  objections  to  all  of  these  five 
charges,  as  transcending  the  general  nature  thereof.  I  am  will- 
ing to  v/aive  that  objection  provided  you  recognize  my  other  ob- 
jection, and,  in  either  of  the  ways  that  have  been  indicated,  avoid 
it.  My  other  objection  is,  that  the  charges  are  insufficient  in 
form  and  legal  effect.  They  are  insufficient  in  form  and  legal 
effect  because  they  state  more  than  one  offense  in  the  charge. 
Section  16  of  the  Book  says :  'A  charge  shall  not  allege  more 
than  one  offense.'  I  claim  that  these  charges,  each  and  all  of 
the  five,  allege  more  than  one  offense.  I  have  argued  it  in  my 
demurrer  which  is  in  your  possession.  Now,  it  has  been  argued 
by  the  prosecution  that  it  does  not  make  two  charges  to  say  that- 
an  offense  is  contrary  to  the  Book  of  Discipline — that  an  offense 
is  contrary  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church,  and  also  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  I  never  have  contended  that  it  was.  It  is  the  doc- 
trine. It  is  the  doctrine  against  which  contradiction  is  charged 
which  makes  the  item.  There  are  two  doctrines  stated  here — 
contradiction  with  two  doctrines.  That  is  what  makes  it  two 
offenses.  An  offense  does  not  merely  consist,  as  was  well  argued 
by  Dr.  Brown  the  other  day,  an  offense  does  not  merely  consist 
in  what  is  imputed  to  me.  You  may  impute  anything  you  please 
to  me.  That  is  no  offense,  unless  you  can  show  something  in 
the  Westminster   Standards  and    in   the   Holy  Scriptures  with 


160 


ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 


which  that  is  in  contradiction.  An  offense  is  contradiction  with 
something  in  the  Standards,  and  that  something  has  to  be  speci- 
fied. Now,  theie  are  two  specifications  here  of  contradiction, 
and  these  two  specifications  of  contradiction  make  two  offenses  ; 
and  I  hold  that  it  would  be  an  injustice  to  me  that  by  a  cumula- 
tion of  votes  you  might  convict  me,  whereas,  if  each  one  were 
voted  upon  separately,  I  would  be  acquitted.  There  is  the  injus- 
tice that  is  involved  in  trying  two  offenses  under  the  same 
charge,  and  that  is  the  reason  of  the  law  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline that  a  charge  shall  set  forth  only  one  offense  and  the  al- 
leged offense. 

"  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  of  course  there  may  be  room  for  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  here,  but  I  wish  to  be  entirely  frank  with  this 
body.  I  have  waived ;  I  have  gone  as  far  as  I  can  conscien- 
tiously go  in  waiving  objections  to  the  transcending  of  the  gen- 
eral nature  thereof  in  order  to  get  to  trial,  and,  if  you  will  con- 
sent in  any  way  you  please,  either  by  allowing  the  committee  to 
make  two  new  charges  out  of  these,  or  by  taking  a  separate  vote 
upon  them,  to  prevent  any  injustice  in  your  verdict  and  to  bring 
about  a  definite  decision,  I  am  agreed.  That  is  all  that  I  ask.  I 
ask  a  decision  which  we  can  consent  to,  which  is  clear,  definite, 
and  just.  That  is  all.  1  waive  it  with  that  understanding,  and  I 
consent  to  Dr.  Alexander's  resolution  because  it  accomplishes 
that.  If  there  is  any  other  way,  I  will  consent  to  that.  But  let 
it  be  understood  that  I  cannot  waive  my  objections  as  to  trans- 
cending the  general  nature  thereof  unless  you  consent  to  this 
proposition.  If  you  refuse  it,  I  am  obliged  to  contest  the  general 
nature  of  each  one  of  these  charges,  and  if  you>  overcome  me, 
carry  it  by  appeal  to  the  higher  courts.  Now,  do  not  force  me 
to  this,  brethren.  Do  not  force  me  to  this  when  I  am  yielding 
all  that  I  can  in  the  interest  of  coming  speedily  to  the  result,  and  I 
am  willing  to  do  anything  that  is  just  and  reasonable  in  the  matter. 

"  Dr.  Booth  :  May  I  ask  Dr.  Briggs  a  question  before  he  takes 
his  seat.'  I  have  followed  him  with  great  interest  and  attention. 
I  would  ask  him  if  I  am  right  in  apprehending  that  his  affirma- 
tion in  regard  to  there  being  two  doctrines  is,  first,  one  doctrine 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  ? 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  Yes. 

'  Dr.  Booth  :  And  the  second  doctrine,  that  it  is  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ? 


TRANSFER  OF  PROOFS  IgJ 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  Yes. 

"  Dr.  Booth  :  I  hope  the  brethren  will  notice  that,  because  that 
exolains — I  seem  to  feel  myself  that  his  request  is  reasonable. 
The  only  objection  is  that  it  would  involve  the  preamble  or  the 
statement  of  the  charge  over  again,  and  I  understand  that  he 
would  be  content  with  the  question  being  taken  separately. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  That  is  all  I  ask. 

"  Dr.  Booth  :  I  do  not  see  how,  under  the  circumstances,  there 
could  be  any  objection  to  that.  However,  I  am  not  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee." 

The  Presbytery  then  took  the  following  action  by  a 
great  majority : 

"  Resoh't-ci,  That  in  view  of  the  conditional  waiver  made  by  the 
defendant,  the  Presbytery,  without  passing  upon  his  objections  to 
charges  i,  2,  3,  5  and  6,  rule  that  in  taking  the  vote  each  of  the 
items  in  these  charges,  as  indicated  by  numerals  in  the  objec- 
tions filed,  shall  be  voted  upon  separately." 

Dr.  Lampe  argued  this  afternoon  that  the  offence  is  a 
doctrine  taught  by  Dr.  Briggs.  Clearly  that  is  a  mis- 
take. The  offence  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  something 
that  is  in  contravention  of  an  essential  and  necessary  ar- 
ticle of  Holy  Scripture  or  of  the  standards  of  the  Church. 
And  if  it  is  asserted  that  his  teaching  conflicts  with  two 
different  doctrines  of  the  standards,  then  two  offences 
are  alleged,  and  these  two  offences  must  be  alleged  in 
two  different  charges.     That  is  my  point. 

It  will  be  evident  to  the  General  Assembly  that  if  in 
any  way  the  condition  on  which  the  waiver  was  made  is 
removed,  that  the  waiver  is  removed  also.  And  as  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  did  not  pass  upon  the  prelimi- 
nary objections  to  five  of  the  Amended  Charges  as  in- 
sufficient in  form  and  legal  effect,  but  went  to  trial  simply 
on  the  basis  of  the  waiver,  the  whole  question  of  in- 
sufificiency  of  these  five  charges  is  raised  before  this  As- 
sembly by  the  prosecution  challenging  the  agreement. 


162        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Therefore  the  Assembly  itself  must  either  consent  to  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  on  the  matter,  or  itself  pass  up- 
on the  sufficiency  of  the  five  charges,  before  they  can  be 
regarded  as  triable.  This  General  Assembly  will  hardly 
do  the  grave  injustice  of  giving  the  prosecution  all  the 
advantage  of  the  waiver  when  they  deny  to  the  appellee 
the  advantage  of  the  action  of  his  Presbytery  on  which 
the  waiver  was  conditioned.  The  prosecution  demand 
the  waiver  and  also  a  censure  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  for  agreeing  to  the  waiver  with  the  condition  at- 
tached. If  you  sustain  this  specification,  you  declare  the 
agreement  made  between  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
and  the  defendant  an  invalid  agreement.  If  it  be  an  in- 
valid agreement,  the  General  Assembly  cannot  take  ad- 
vantage of  it.  But  the  whole  trial  on  the  Charges  and 
the  final  verdict  from  which  an  appeal  was  taken,  rest 
upon  this  agreement.  If  you  declare  it  invalid,  you 
make  the  whole  trial  invalid  and  your  only  honorable 
course  will  be  to  send  the  case  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  for  a  new  trial,  with  the  instruction  to  pass 
upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  Charges  in 
form  and  in  legal  effect. 

We  have  considered  all  the  objections  of  the  appel- 
lants to  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  upon 
the  Preliminary  Objections  of  the  defendant.  We  have 
seen  that  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  was  lawful  and 
just.  We  have  seen  that  a  reversal  of  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  in  these  regards  would  be  to  endorse  the 
discourteous  and  dishonorable  practices  of  the  prosecu- 
tors ;  and  that  the  effect  of  such  reversal  could  have  no 
other  lawful  issue  than  a  new  trial  in  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York. 


UNSWORN  EVIDENCE  lg3 

II.   THE   EVIDENCE. 

The  appellants  make  ten  specifications  of  objection  to 
the  Evidence  submitted  by  the  defendant  under  three 
Grounds  of  Appeal.  But  they  are  really  only  two  objec- 
tions repeated  five  times  under  different  heads. 

The  appellee  has  two  Complaints  to  come  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York  against  the  evidence  offered  by  the 
prosecution.  You  have  decided  to  entertain  their  objec- 
tions to  his  evidence  when  you  cannot  entertain  his  ob- 
jections to  their  evidence. 

I.   Unsworn  Evidence. 

This  is  the  history  of  the  Evidence  submitted  by  the 
accused  from  his  own  writings.  The  defendant  present- 
ing his  evidence  said : 

"  Inasmuch  as  my  preliminary  objection  to  the  presentation  by 
the  prosecution  of  evidence  by  the  wholesale,  and  my  request  for 
the  reading  of  their  evidence,  have  been  overruled  by  the  Pres- 
bytery, 1  submit  to  your  decisions  with  the  reservation  of  all 
rights  of  appeal  and  complamt,  and  claim  the  same  privilege  for 
the  defendant  which  you  have  granted  to  the  prosecution. 

"  I  submit  the  following  documentary  evidence  '  in  so  far  as  it 
bears  upon  this  case,'  reading  such  portions  as  I  desire  to  bring 
before  you  at  this  time,  and  reserving  the  right  to  read  such 
other  portions  as  I  may  desire  to  use  in  the  several  stages  of  the 
defence."    [See  The  Case,  Part  II.,  pp.  80-108.] 

T  am  not  going  over  all  the  details  of  these  arguments. 
The  whole  extent  of  it  would  take  fully  an  hour.  I  am 
going  to  skip  all  the  references  to  it  in  the  stenographer's 
report  and  simply  sum  up  upon  it.  I  think  that  will 
make  it  sufificiently  clear. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  before  the  Presby- 
tery, Dr.  Brown  said : 

'  I  now  move  that  the  documentary  evidence  offered  by  the 
defendant  be  regarded  by  the  Presbytery  as  competent  evidence. 


164       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  Mr.  McCoOK  :  Before  the  question  is  taken,  I  wish  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  would  re- 
quire to  have  an  exception  noted  if  that  vote  is  taken  in  that 
way  to  include  the  testimony  which  has  not  been  verified. 

"  The  Moderator  :  The  exception  relates  to  a  portion  of  the 
evidence  taken  from  his  own  writings. 

The  question,  then,  is  upon  the  motion  made  by  Dr.  Brown, 
that  the  documentary  evidence  offered  by  the  defendant  be  re- 
garded as  competent  evidence.  All  in  favor  of  that  motion  will 
say  aye ;  opposed,  no.  Carried."  (Stenographical  Report,  pp. 
469-480.) 

It  is  claimed  by  the  appellants  that  there  was  Irregu- 
larity in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
in  accepting  this  unsworn  evidence. 

This  is  an  invalid  objection,  because  Dr.  Briggs,  acting 
as  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  read  extracts  from 
printed  documents  which  were  sufficiently  verified  by 
the  submission  of  the  documents  themselves  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, which  documents  were  not  challenged  by  the 
prosecution.  The  defendant  was  not  a  witness.  He 
gave  no  oral  testimony  and  therefore  was  not  required 
to  be  sworn  as  a  witness.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  the  Presbytery  accepted  the  statements  and  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  by  the  accused  in  any 
other  way  than  that  in  which  such  statements  and  ex- 
planations were  presented  in  printed  books  and  minutes 
of  the  Presbytery.  The  evidence  presented  by  the  pros- 
ecution was  purely  documentary — the  evidence  presented 
by  the  defence  was  purely  documentary.  There  was  no 
place  for  being  sworn  as  a  witness  on  either  side  of  this 
case.  To  have  sworn  the  defendant  would  have  been  an 
irregularity  without  precedent.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
there  was  more  than  a  handful  of  the  Presbytery  who 
did  not  sustain  the  Moderator  in  his  decision.     No  one 


UNSWORN   EVIDENCE  1^5 

ventured  to  test  the  sense  of  the  court  by  an  appeal  from 
his  decision.  This  General  Assembly  could  not  sustain 
this  objection  without  establishing  a  new  and  injurious 
precedent,  namely,  that  when  a  defendant  who  by  the 
law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  acts  as  his  own  counsel, 
undertakes  as  a  counsel  to  submit  in  evidence  printed 
documents,  he  must  take  the  oath  that  these  documents 
express  his  real  opinions  before  they  can  be  admitted  in 
evidence.  The  prosecution  wish  to  push  the  defendant 
to  the  bar  as  a  criminal,  and  to  deprive  him  of  the  priv- 
ilege of  counsel  and  of  the  rights  of  counsel. 

Exactly  the  same  specification  appears  as  sustaining 
the  second  ground  of  Appeal,  namely,  receiving  im- 
proper testimony.  This  is  invalid  for  the  reason  that 
documentary  evidence  is  proper  testimony  and  that  it 
is  not  a  legal  procedure  to  require  the  counsel  of  a  de- 
fendant to  be  sworn  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  matter 
contained  in  such  printed  documents  of  the  defendant 
as  he  may  present  as  evidence  in  the  case. 

This  specification  appears  in  another  form  under  the 
same  ground  of  appeal  as  specification  third. 

The  Presbytery  could  not  lawfully  do  otherwise  than 
it  did.  It  could  not  refuse  to  admit  documentary  evi- 
dence as  lawful  and  competent.  It  had  no  right  to  re- 
quire that  the  counsel  who  offered  these  documents 
should  be  put  under  oath  simply  because  the  evidence 
was  taken  from  the  writings  of  the  accused. 

These  same  specifications  again  do  service  as  speci- 
fications 5  and  6  to  sustain  the  fifth  ground  of  Appeal, 
alleging  that  there  was  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  de- 
cision of  the  Presbytery.  These  are  invalid  because  the 
Presbytery  was  bound  to  consider  the  documentary  evi- 
dence offered  by  the  defence,  no  less  than  the  docu- 
mentary evidence  offered  by  the  prosecution.     The  evi- 


IQQ       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

dence  by  the  prosecution  is  simply  and  alone  docu- 
mentary evidence.  If  it  be  necessary  that  documentary 
evidence  should  be  sworn  to  be  valid,  then  the  prosecu- 
tion have  no  valid  evidence.  They  ask  you  to  receive 
their  unsworn  documentary  evidence  as  valid  and  to 
reject  the  unsworn  documentary  evidence  of  the  de- 
fendant as  invalid.  Their  documentary  evidence  con- 
sists chiefly  of  the  writings  of  the  defendant.  Are  un- 
sworn extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  defendant  to  be 
accepted  as  valid  evidence  against  him,  and  unsworn  ex- 
tracts from  his  writings  to  be  rejected  as  invalid  evi- 
dence for  him  ? 

Let  the  General  Assembly  take  that  position  and  you 
have  no  valid  evidence  in  the  case  as  regards  the  opin- 
ions of  the  defendant.  He  has  not  sworn  to  the  extracts 
from  his  writings  given  by  the  prosecution  in  their  speci- 
fications. He  has  admitted  them,  it  is  true,  but  not 
under  oath.  Are  his  admissions  of  extracts  from  his 
writings  when  not  under  oath  to  be  regarded  as  valid  ; 
and  his  assertions  of  extracts  from  his  writings  when 
not  under  oath  to  be  regarded  as  invalid?  Are  his  state- 
ments to  be  accepted  as  valid  when  they  seem  to  favor 
the  prosecution ;  but  to  be  rejected  as  invalid  when 
they  seem  to  favor  the  defence?  Such  justice  is  one- 
eyed  and  that  one  eye  looks  unflinchingly  to  one  side. 
Let  the  General  Assembly  take  that  position  and  the 
appellee  challenges  your  entire  evidence.  You  must 
throw  the  case  out  of  court  as  destitute  of  evidence,  or 
send  it  back  to  the  Presbytery  with  instructions  requir- 
ing that  the  evidence  on  both  sides  be  sworn  evidence. 

Consider  the  situation  that  would  arise  if  the  defend- 
ant should  yield  to  the  opinion  of  the  prosecution  and 
give  his  consent  to  take  the  oath  as  regards  the  extracts 
he  presented   in   evidence  from  his  writings ;  then  he 


UNSWORN  EVIDENCE  lg7 

would  authenticate  his  own  evidence,  but  the  evidence 
of  the  prosecution  would  remain  unauthenticated.  For 
you  cannot  by  any  process  of  law  compel  the  defendant 
to  take  the  oath  to  verify  extracts  from  his  writings 
made  by  the  prosecution.  You  cannot  compel  him  to 
incriminate  himself  or  to  assist  the  prosecution  in  the 
evidence  they  proffer  for  the  purpose  of  convicting  him. 
One  word  more  before  leaving  this  subject.  The  ex- 
tracts from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Briggs  and  from  the 
minutes  of  the  Presbytery  presented  in  the  evidence  by 
the  defense  are  not  challenged  by  the  prosecution  as  to 
their  reality  or  their  truthfulness.  Search  their  argu- 
ments before  the  Presbytery  and  you  will  find  that  they 
do  not  dispute  them  as  forged  or  falsified  or  untruthful. 
Indeed  they  themselves  do  not  hesitate  to  use  many  of 
the  same  extracts  in  argument.  Mr.  McCook  simply 
claimed  that  the  oath  should  be  administered  in  order 
to  make  them  valid  in  law.  He  raised  a  question  of 
legal  validity,  not  a  question  of  historical  validity,  or  of 
moral  validity.  Had  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  any 
reason  to  doubt  the  truthfulness  of  these  extracts?  Has 
this  General  Assembly  any  reason  to  doubt  them? 
Granted  for  argument's  sake  that  Dr.  Briggs  made  a 
technical  mistake  in  refusing  to  be  sworn,  and  that  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  made  a  mistake  in  law  in  de- 
clining to  pat  him  under  oath ;  such  mistakes  do  not 
disturb  the  equities  of  the  case.  For  the  Presbytery 
could  not  equitably  refuse  to  consider  the  evidence  prof- 
fered in  these  extracts  and  they  ought  to  have  made 
their  final  judgment  on  the  basis  of  the  "  affirmations  of 
loyalty  made  by  the  defendant  to  the  Standards  of  the 
Church,  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice."  They  ought  to  have  made 
their  final  judgment  in  view  of  the  explanations  made 


IQS       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

by  the  accused  of  the  language  used  in  his  Inaugural 
Address,  and  of  his  "  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the 
interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its 
phrases  and  illustrations."  They  would  have  done  the 
defendant  a  grave  wrong  if  they  had  refused  to  consider 
all  these  important  parts  of  his  evidence,  simply  because 
they  were  unsworn.  Could  you  overturn  the  verdict  of 
acquittal  because  of  such  a  technicality  as  this? 

Let  us  look  at  it  in  the  concrete.  If  you  should 
throw  out  the  copy  of  the  Inaugural  submitted  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  you  still  have  before  you  the  copy  submitted  by 
the  prosecution. 

The  prosecution  in  their  evidence  cite  from  the  Inau- 
gural the  sentence : 

"  There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine  author- 
ity— the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason."  (p.  27.) 

The  defendant  cited  in  his  evidence  the  following  ex- 
tract from  the  same  edition  of  the  Inaugural  put  in  evi- 
dence by  the  prosecution : 

"  When  it  was  said,  *  There  are  historically  three  great  foun- 
tains of  divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  * 
— I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right  to  infer 
from  anything  whatever  in  the  Inaugural  Address  or  in  any 
of  my  writings,  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible,  the  Church  and 
the  Reason."'  (pp.  85-86.) 

The  prosecution  cite  from  the  Inaugural  the  extract : 

"  There  is  no  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of 
Christendom,  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sa.nctification  at 
death."     (p.  54.) 

And  again  from  the  appendixes : 

"  There  is  no  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of 
Christendom,  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at 
death.  The  only  sanctification  known  to  experience,  to  Christian 
orthodoxy,  and  to  the  Bible,  is  progressive  sanctification.     Pro- 


EVIDENCE  NOT  READ  IQQ 

gressive  sanctification  after  death,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Church  ;  and  it  is  of  vast  importance  in  our  times  that  we 
should  understand  it  and  live  in  accordance  with  it." 

The  defendant  quotes  from  the  same  appendix  : 
"  The  views  that  I  have  expressed  with  regard  to  sanctification 
after  death  should  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Purgatory  on  the  one  side  and  the  Armin- 
ian  doctrine  of  Probation  on  the  other  side.  Both  of  these  I 
rejecjt.  I  build  on  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  Mi'ddle  State  and 
the  invariable  statement  of  the  New  Testament  that  the  second 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  goal  of  Sanctification.  Rom.  viii. 
29-30;  I  Gor.  i.  8;  Eph.  iv.  13-26;  Phil.  i.  6 ;  i  Thess.  iii.  13. 
v.  23 ;  2  Peter  iii.  13-14;  John  iii.  2-3.  There  is  not  a  passage 
in  the  Bible  that  teaches  either  directly  or  indirectly  immediate 
sanctification  at  death."     (p.  86.) 

Ought  the  Presbytery  to  have  accepted  the  unsworn 
extracts  from  the  Inaugural  male  by  the  prosecutors  as 
vahd,  and  to  have  rejected  the  unsworn  extracts  from  the 
same  Inaugural  made  by  the  defence  as  invahd?  Who 
could  think  for  a  moment  of  such  a  thing? 

2.  THE  EVIDENCE  PRESENTED  BUT  NOT  READ. 

Five  specifications  of  error  are  given  by  the  appellants 
under  two  grounds  of  appeal.  But  there  is  really  only 
a  single  act  of  the  Presbytery  which  is  objected  to, 
namely,  the  acceptance  by  the  Presbytery  of  evidence 
which  was  presented  but  not  read.  I  shall  omit  the 
long  argument  in  the  Presbytery  on  this  head,  and  con- 
tent myself  simply  by  asking  Dr.  Brown  to  read  the 
answer  to  the  protest  of  Elder  Ketchum  and  others 
made  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

Dr.  Brown  read  as  follows : 

"  The  Presbytery  desires  to  record  the  following  answer,  in 
accordance  with  Section  106  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  to  the 
protest  signed  by  A.  P.  Ketchum,  W,  G.  T.  Shedd,  George  L. 


170        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

Shearer  and  others,  against  action  of  this  Judicatory  relating  to 
the  record  of  evidence  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D. : 

"  I.  The  Presbytery  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that,  although 
the  protest  is  declared  to  be  made  against  '  injurious  and  erro- 
neous acts  and  proceedings,'  it  cites  but  one  act  against  which 
protest  is  lawful.  Section  104  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  gives 
to  members  of  a  minority  the  right  to  protest.  A  minority  ex- 
ists only  when  some  question  has  been  decided  by  a  majority 
vote.  The  only  such  action  related  in  the  protest  is  the  vote  of 
the  Presbytery  to  strike  out  the  record  of  a  request  made  by 
the  Prosecution.  Against  this  action  only,  among  the  pro- 
ceedings set  forth  in  the  protest,  is  the  protest  lawful.  But  it 
is  noteworthy  that,  of  the  four  reasons  assigned  by  the  protest- 
ants,  not  one  relates  to  the  question  whether  the  Presbytery 
erred  in  striking  out  the  record  of  this  request.  The  reasons, 
therefore,  do  not  sustain  the  protest,  and  it  might  be  enough  to 
record  this  fact  as  a  sufficient  legal  answer  to  the  protest.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  protest  calls  in  question  certain  other  proceed- 
ings, on  alleged  grounds  of  justice  and  order,  the  Presbytery 
deems  it  wise  and  proper,  notwithstanding  this  technical  defect, 
to  cover  in  its  answer  all  the  matters  embraced  in  the  protest. 

"  II.  The  Presbytery  finds  the  relation  of  facts  in  the  protest 
to  be  incomplete,  inaccurate  and  misleading  in  several  particu- 
lars, and  desires  to  supplement  and  correct  it,  as  follows  : 

"  (a)  The  matter  now  appearing  on  pp.  448-468  of  the  sten- 
ographer's official  notes,  and  on  the  printed  sheets  inserted  at 
p.  468  of  the  said  notes,  and  referred  to  in  the  protest,  was  all 
brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Presbjrtery,  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  each  member  of  the  Presbytery  and  of  the  Prosecution  in 
printed  form,  was  offered  by  the  defendant  as  evidence,  and  was 
sufficiently  described  and  identified  by  him. 

"  (i)  The  defendant  was  prepared  and  ready  to  read  the  evi- 
dence if  the  Presbytery  had  so  desired,  and  omitted  the  reading 
of  it  solely  to  save  the  time  of  the  Presbytery,  already  severely 
taxed. 

"  (f)  In  this  the  defendant  evidently  acted  in  good  faith,  and 
with  the  simple  desire  to  meet  the  convenience  of  the  Presby- 
tery, and  the  Presbytery  so  understood  and  acquiesced  without 
a  word  of  dissent. 


EVIDENCE  NOT  READ  171 

"  (d)  After  the  defendant  had  offered  all  his  evidence,  in- 
cluding the  evidence  which  has  been  made  the  occasion  of  pro- 
test, the  Presbytery  voted  'that  the  documentary  evidence  which 
has  been  offered  by  the  defendant  be  considered  competent ' 
(Minutes  of  Presbytery,  Dec.  5,  1892,  p.  384). 

"  (e)  The  contents  of  the  pages  indicated,  in  the  stenogra- 
pher's report,  are  therefore  not '  new  matter  which  purports  to  be 
evidence,'  as  the  protest  terms  them,  nor  were  they  introduced 
after  the  time  for  the  lawful  introduction  of  evidence  was  past, 
but  they  are  a  part  of  the  evidence  introduced  by  the  defendant 
lawfully  and  at  the  proper  time. 

"  (/)  Assuming  it  to  be  true  that  the  matter  on  pp.  448-468  of 
the  stenographer's  report  was  there  recorded  by  the  authority  of 
the  Moderator,  it  is  evident  that  the  authority  of  the  Modera- 
tor, in  this,  gave  effect  to  the  will  of  the  Presbytery  indicated  by 
its  acquiescence  and  consent  aforesaid. 

"  (^^)  In  addition  to  his  general  powers  as  representative  of 
the  Presbytery,  the  Moderator  had  the  special  power  vested  in 
him  as  Chairman  and  representative  of  the  Committee  appointed 
November  28,  1892,  'to  supervise  the  official  stenographer's  re- 
ports of  the  proceedings  '  (Minutes  of  November  28,  1892,  p.  347). 

"  (^)  There  is  no  evidence,  in  the  stenographer's  notes  or  else- 
where, that  the  contents  of  pp.  448-468  of  said  notes,  or  any 
part  of  them,  were  '  inserted '  in  any  other  sense  than  would 
properly  apply  to  all  the  stenographer's  materials,  including  his 
shorthand  notes  and  such  written  or  printed  documents  as  are 
placed  in  his  hands,  which  are  put  into  the  typewritten  form  '  in 
the  interval  between  two  sessions  of  the  Judicatory.' 

"  (/)  The  fifteen  sheets  of  printed  matter  referred  to  in  the 
protest  were  introduced  by  the  direction  of  the  Moderator  in 
open  Presbytery,  and  with  the  full  accord  of  Presbytery ;  the 
Moderator  making  his  decision  distinctly,  stating  it  repeatedly, 
and  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  decision  was  subject 
to  an  appeal  to  the  house,  if  any  one  should  appeal ;  and  neither 
the  prosecution,  nor  any  one  of  the  protestants,  nor  any  other 
member  of  the  Judicatory,  made  a  motion  or  showed  a  desire  to 
lake  such  an  appeal  (Minutes  of  December  6,  1892,  pp.  389,  390; 
Stenographer's  Report,  pp.  577,  578). 

"  (J)  The  Presbytery  had  previously  decided  that  evidence  need 
not  be  read  to  the    Pre.sbytery  in  order  to  be  competent  evi- 


172        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

dence  (Minutes  November  30,  1892,  pp.  362,  370;  Stenographer's 
Report,  pp.  297,  314,  364),  and  the  action  concerning  the  evidence 
now  under  consideration  accorded  with  that  decision. 

"  (A)  The  Presbytery  calls  attention  to  the  statement  of  the 
protest  that  'a  motion  having  been  duly  made  and  seconded, 
that  the  Judicatory  should  comply  with  the  request  of  the  Pros- 
ecuting Committee  and  strike  out  all  such  matter  from,  the  sten- 
ographic report,  said  motion  was  declared  by  the  Moderator  to 
be  out  of  order,  and  was  not  put  to  the  house,'  as  an  erroneous 
statement,  in  that,  as  appears  from  the  stenographer's  notes,  no 
such  motion  was  made.  The  only  motion  offered  in  behalf  of  the 
prosecution  in  this  matter  was  the  motion  to  have  their  request 
entered  on  the  Minutes;  an  amendment  was  offered  to  the  effect 
that  their  request  be  excluded  from  the  Minutes,  and  the  motion 
passed  in  this  amended  form  (Stenographer's  Report,  pp.  582- 
591,  662-681,  684-696,  especially  pages  664,  661,  and  672). 

'III.  The  reasons  assigned  for  this  protest  are,  as  already  in- 
dicated, totally  irrelevant,  since  they  have  no  connection  with 
the  only  part  of  the  proceedings  referred  to  against  which  pro- 
test is  lawful,  viz.,  the  decision  of  Presbytery  to  exclude  from 
the  record  a  request  made  by  the  prosecution.  But  they  embody 
criticisms  of  action  taken  by  the  Moderator  and  the  Presbyter}', 
which  the  Presbytery  is  unwilling  to  pass  by  without  notice. 

'*  {a)  The  first  '  reason  '  is  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery 
an  invalid  criticism,  because,  while  the  stenographer's  report  of 
proceedings  should  be  an  exact  record,  that  report  may  and 
properly  should  include  whatever  is  received  and  taken  as  read 
or  spoken,  and  so  given  the  effect  of  read  or  spoken  words.  The 
evidence  under  consideration  was,  to  save  valuable  time,  offered 
without  reading,  and  taken  as  read. 

"  (^)  The  second  '  reason '  is  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presby- 
tery an  invalid  criticism,  because  no  '  new  matter '  was  intro- 
duced into  the  stenographer's  notes,  because  the  matter  referred 
to  had  been  brought  before  the  Presbytery,  and  was  properly  in- 
troduced, and  because  said  matter  is  actually  evidence  in  the 
case  admitted  by  the  Presbytery  as  competent.  The  Presbytery 
is  therefore  unable  to  see  how  there  can  be  therein  anything 
'  misleading,  erroneous  and  irregular,'  or  anything  '  that  may 
greatly  hamper,  embarrass,  and  possibly  vitiate  the  entire  judi- 
cial proceedings.' 


EVIDENCE  NOT  READ  173 

"  {c)  The  third  '  reason  '  is  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery 
an  invalid  criticism,  because  '  the  accuracy  and  integrity  of  the 
official  stenographic  report  of  the  proceedings  '  were  in  fact 
secured  by  the  incorporation  of  the  said  matter  in  the  said  report, 
and  would  not  have  been  secured  otherwise. 

"(</)  The  fourth  'reason'  is  in  the  judgment  of  the  Presby- 
tery an  invalid  criticism,  because  the  Presbytery  is  unable  to  see 
how 'the  entire  record  of  this  important  judicial  case  may  be 
rendered  invalid  and  ineffectual '  by  the  action  criticised,  unless 
the  incorporation  in  the  record  of  all  the  evidence  which  the 
Judicatory  has  admitted  as  competent,  instead  of  the  admission 
of  a  part  and  the  exclusion  of  a  part,  should  have  the  effect  of 
making  the  record  '  invalid  and  ineffectual,'  which  seems  absurd. 

"IV.  Although  a  protest,  with  relevant  reasons,  against  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  in  excluding  the  record  of  the  request 
of  the  prosecution  from  the  Minutes  of  Presbytery,  would  be 
technically  in  order,  it  seems  surprising  that  any  one  should  sup- 
pose the  record  of  the  request  to  be  adm.issible. 

"  {a)  No  action  on  the  request  was  taken,  or  even  proposed, 
and  the  Minutes  do  not  include  a  record  of  action  not  taken. 

"  {b)  The  request  was  to  the  effect  that  the  said  twenty  pages 
of  the  stenographer's  notes  and  the  said  fifteen  additional  printed 
sheets  should  be  stricken  from  the  official  stenographic  record, 
'and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  permitted  to  refer  or  to  use 
the  contents  of  said  twenty  pages  of  stenographer's  notes,  or  of 
the  said  fifteen  additional  printed  sheets,  or  any  of  the  extracts, 
documents  or  books  in  either  of  them  contained,  recited  or 
referred  to,  as  evidence  upon  the  trial,  or  in  any  manner  what- 
ever before  this  Judicatory '--notwithstanding  the  facts  that  the 
Presbytery  had  by  vote  declared  this  with  the  other  evidence 
offered  by  the  defendant  to  be  competent  evidence,  and  that  it 
was  actually  a  part  of  the  lawful  evidence  presented  by  the  de- 
fendant, and  that  the  Moderator  had  explicitly  so.  recognized  it, 
and  secured  its  embodiment  in  the  official  stenographic  record, 
as  aforesaid,  and  that  no  appeal  had  been  taken  from  the  decision 
of  the  Moderator  that  it  should  be  embodied  therein,  and  that 
for  these  reasons  the  prosecution  had  no  right  to  make  the 
request,  and  that  the  Moderator  had  ruled  that  the  request  was 
not  in  order ;  and  matters  declared  not  in  order  have  no  place 
in  the  official  record  of  proceedings. 


174        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  (t)  The  attempt  to  secure  the  record  of  the  said  request 
under  the  guise  of  the  record  of  an  exception, — which  exception 
the  prosecution  were  entitled,  if  they  thought  best,  to  take  to 
any  part  of  the  proceedings  that  they  disapproved, — was  improper 
and  out  of  order. 

"V.  Inasmuch  as  (a)  the  failure  to  include  in  the  official  sten- 
ographer's report  a  part  of  the  evidence  which  had  been  offered 
by  the  defendant,  taken  as  read  by  the  acquiescence  and  consent 
of  the  Judicatory,  and  by  vote  accepted  as  competent,  would 
have  been  an  irregular  act,  and  one  of  singular  injustice  to  the 
defendant ;  and 

"  (d)  The  inclusion  of  the  said  evidence  in  the  said  report  in- 
volved no  wrong,  hardship  or  injustice  to  the  prosecution,  and 
the  prosecution  had  therefore  no  just  ground  for  desiring  that  it 
be  not  there  included,  or  for  seeking  to  deprive  the  defendant  of 
his  right  to  use  it  for  the  purposes  of  his  defence  before  the 
Judicatory,  and 

"  {c)  The  action  and  the  decisions  of  the  Moderator  in  reference 
to  this  matter  and  the  acquiescence  of  the  Presbytery  therein 
appear  to  have  been  equitable  and  right,  and 

"  (</)  The  exclusion  of  the  request  of  the  prosecution  from  the 
Minutes,  by  vote  of  the  Presbytery,  was  in  accordance  with  prec- 
edent and  the  requirements  of  the  case. 

"Therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing  considerations,  the 
Presbytery  is  unable  to  see  any  justification  for  the  protest,  or 
any  proper  ground  for  the  criticisms  contained  therein."  (Sten- 
ographical  Report,  pp.  1102  seg.) 

This  answer  of  the  Presbytery  to  the  Protest  is  a 
sufficient  answer  to  the  specifications  of  the  Prosecution. 

It  is  now  necessary  for  me  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  an  interesting  incident  showing 
that  the  Prosecution  were  hoisted  by  their  own  petard, 
and  that  their  argument  through  Dr.  Lampe  would  have 
been  in  a  very  sad  condition  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
considerateness  of  the  Presbytery  and  of  the  defendant. 
This  is  the  episode  : 

"  Dr.  Briggs  .  And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wish  to  make  a 
request  of  the  Presbytery,  namely,  that  they  shall  direct  Dr. 


EVIDENCE  NOT  READ  175 

Lampe  to  specify  what  portions  of  the  printed  argument  put  in 
our  hands  have  not  been  read  on  this  floor.  I  make  this  request 
— not  to  exclude  any  part  of  his  argument  from  consideration  ; 
if  they  wish  to  have  it  incorporated  in  the  stenographic  report, 
1  for  one  shall  make  no  objection — but  it  is  necessary  for  me 
to  know  what  I  am  to  except  to  ;  and  there  are  matters  contained 
in  this  printed  argument  which  were  not  read  before  us  and 
which  I  want  to  except  to  and  which  I  cannot  except  to  unless 
they  are  recognized  as  before  the  court.  Therefore,  I  request 
that  Dr.  Lampe  shall  specify  what  portions  of  his  printed  argu- 
ment have  not  been  presented  to  the  court. 

"The  Moderator:  I  think  that  it  is  a  proper  request  to 
make. 

"  Dr.  Robinson  :  Dr.  Lampe  has  not  got  through  yet,  has  he  ? 

"The  Moderator  :  No,  sir;  but  he  can  do  that. 

"  Dr.  Lampe  :  As  to  that  I  will  state  this.  I  felt  yesterday 
afternoon  under  intense  pressure.  I  wanted  to  get  through,  and 
I  saw  that  you  wanted  me  to  get  through,  and  I  came  near  mak- 
ing myself  sick,  and  sometimes  when  I  got  to  a  paragraph  and 
saw  what  it  was,  I  simply  gave  a  paragraph  in  a  sentence.  Now 
I  cannot  tell  every  paragraph  that  I  treated  in  that  way.  I  simply 
did  it  out  of  an  intense  desire  to  relieve  the  house  and  to  relieve 
myself. 

"  Now,  I  will  go  over  the  paper  and  see  if  I  can  find  those 
things,  but  that  was  my  simple  aim.  I  wanted  to  accommodate 
the  house  and  get  through,  and  in  every  instance  where  I  did 
that  I  think  I  gave  the  true  sense  of  the  paragraph.  However, 
if  you  wish  me  to  go  over  the  Minutes  and  mark  out  what  I  pos- 
sibly may  have  left  out,  I  will  do  so. 

"The  Moderator :  I  will  ask  if  the  stenographer  took  down 
your  address  as  you  gave  it,  or  whether  he  followed  your  printed 
manuscript,  because  there  is  a  variation  between  the  stenog- 
rapher's notes  and  the  printed  argument  of  Dr.  Briggs  ;  he  hav- 
ing spoken  more  than  is  contained  in  his  printed  argument,  and 
in  this  case  there  is  less  spoken  than  will  appear  in  print. 

[The  stenographer  stated  that  he  followed  the  printed  argu- 
ment of  Dr.  Lampe,  leaving  out  such  portions  as  Dr.  Lampe  in- 
dicated by  pencil  memoranda  were  not  read.  ] 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  May  I  state  that  while  I  was  delivering  my  argu- 
ment I  furnished  the  stenographer  a  copy  of  it  to  follow  me,  and 


176       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

I  delivered  some  matter  orally  that  I  could  not  have  time  to 
have  printed.  Therefore,  the  written  argument  does  not  em- 
brace everything  thai  I  said.  But  it  is  all  in  the  stenographer's 
report,  and  so  soon  as  I  can  get  a  moment's  leisure  I  mean  to 
strike  off  a  page  to  add  to  the  printed  report.  But  what  I  am 
calling  attention  to  now  is  something  different.  It  is  something 
delivered  to  you  in  print  which  was  not  spoken  orally.  I  desire 
to  make  no  difficulty  for  the  prosecution  about  it.  I  wish  to 
have  it  in  some  legal  form  so  that  I  may  except  to  it. 

"The  Moderator:  Would  not  this  relieve  the  difficulty :  If 
Dr.  Lampe  be  allowed  to  incorporate  the  printed  form  in  the 
stenographer's  notes,  just  as  matter  submitted  by  you  has  been 
incorporated  ? 

"Dr.  Briggs:  Yes,  if  the  house  will  take  the  same  action  in 
his  case  as  it  took  in  my  case.  I  think  the  house  should  take 
the  action,  however. 

"The  Moderator:  The  question,  then,  is  for  the  house  to  de- 
cide, namely,  that  Dr.  Lampe  have  power  to  incorporate  in  the 
stenographer's  minutes  the  argument  in  printed  form  as  pre- 
sented, including  the  portions  omitted  in  reading.  Carried." 
(Stenographer's  Report,  pp.  1302  st;^.) 

If  the  evidence  of  the  defendant  is  to  be  excluded,  the 
argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  must  in  common  fairness  be  ex- 
cUided  also.  Then  the  greater  part  of  the  case  of  the 
prosecution  vi^ould  be  destroyed.  The  prosecution  un- 
consciously fell  into  the  pit  their  own  hands  did  dig. 

"  The  monitory  touch  o'  the  tether — felt 
By  few,  not  marked  by  many,  named  by  none 
At  the  moment,  only  recognized  aright 
r  the  fulness  of  ihe  days,  for  God's,  lest  sin 
Exceed  the  service,  leap  the  line." 

Consider  the  equities  of  the  case.  Dr.  Briggs  pre- 
sented as  a  part  of  his  evidence  extracts  from  twenty- 
three  representative  scholars.  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Au- 
gustine among  the  Fathers ;  Luther  and  Calvin  among 
the  Reformers;   Baxter  and  Rutherford  as  representa- 


EVIDENCE  NOT  READ  177 

tive  Puritans  and  Presbyterians  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury ;  Van  Oosterzee  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Hol- 
land ;  Sanday,  Plummer,  Huntington,  and  Gore  of  the 
Episcopal  Church ;  Bruce,  Iverach,  Charteris,  Dods, 
and  Vincent  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  Beet  of  the 
Wesleyans;  Fisher,  Cave,  Thayer,  and  Fairchild  of  the 
Congregational  Churches ;  Apple  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church — all  testifying  that  there  are  errors  in 
Holy  Scripture.  If  these  extracts  are  valid  evidence, 
they  are  invincible  evidence  in  favor  of  the  defendant 
and  against  the  prosecution.  Hence  the  anxiety  of  the 
prosecution  to  rule  them  out  and  of  the  defendant  that 
they  should  be  considered.  Why  should  the  prosecu- 
tion be  so  anxious  to  deprive  the  accused  of  his  evidence  ? 
If  he  made  a  mistake  in  not  reading  these  extracts  and 
the  Presbytery  made  a  formal  and  technical  mistake  in 
their  action  in  recording  this  evidence  in  the  Stenograph- 
ical  Report,  is  it  equitable  that  the  defendant  should  be 
deprived  of  his  evidence  on  that  account?  His  motive 
for  not  reading  was  a  good  motive,  to  save  the  time  of 
the  body.  No  injury  was  done  to  any  party.  The  evi- 
dence was  in  the  hands  of  the  prosecution  and  of  every 
member  of  the  court,  in  printed  form. 

The  defendant  presented  to  the  Presbytery  the  names 
and  the  writings  of  124  scholars  now  living  and  of  23 
scholars  who,  though  among  the  departed,  have  yet 
taught  during  the  25  years  since  1866  when  the  defend- 
ant began  his  studies  of  Biblical  Criticism  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Berlin ;  all  of  whom  hold  to  the  views  of  the  au- 
thorship of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  Isaiah  held  by  the  de- 
fendant, and  charged  against  him  as  heresy.  These  are 
invincible  arguments  in  favor  of  the  defendant  and 
against  the  prosecution. 

The  attempt  made  by  Dr.  Lampe  this  afternoon  to 


378       AUGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

traduce  these  124  honored  scholars  by  calHng  them  ra- 
tionalists and  unbelievers  was  exceedingly  unfair  and 
improper.  It  does  not  represent  the  truth  of  the  case. 
Come  of  them  are  rationalists ;  some  of  them  are  as 
evangelical  and  orthodox  as  he  is.  Why  should  the  de- 
fendant be  deprived  of  such  important  evidence,  even  if 
he  and  his  presbytery  committed  technical  mistakes  in 
connection  with  its  presentation  ? 

It  is  evident  that  if  the  prosecution  have  their  way,  if 
you  recognize  their  specifications  of  error  as  valid,  you 
will  rule  out  all  the  evidence  proffered  by  the  defendant 
and  will  have  to  decide  the  case  on  the  basis  of  the  evi- 
dence offered  by  the  prosecution,  and  that  evidence 
alone.  If  you  desire  to  condemn  the  defendant  at  any 
cost  to  truth  and  right,  this  might  be  the  easiest  way  in 
which  you  can  do  it.  But  even  if  you  could  justify  such 
a  procedure  on  technical  and  purely  legal  grounds,  how 
could  you  escape  the  imputation  of  injustice  from  an 
outraged  community  who  would  point  to  all  the  evi- 
dence of  the  defendant  which  you  excused  yourselves 
from  considering  because  of  merely  technical  mistakes 
committed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York? 

You  cannot  refuse  his  unsworn  extracts  and  accept 
theirs.  You  cannot  rule  out  so  much  of  his  evidence  as 
was  not  read  and  admit  their  wholesale  evidence  which 
was  not  read.  But  even  if  you  could  take  such  an  un- 
just position,  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  would  rest 
simply  and  alone  upon  the  extracts  from  the  Inaugural 
given  as  the  specification  of  the  Charges.  The  defend- 
ant disclaims  the  interpretations  put  upon  these  extracts 
by  the  prosecution.  He  denies  that  they  present  any' 
evidence  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Charges.  *You  cannot 
convict  himbyan  interpretation  of  these  extracts  which  the 
defendant  repudiates  as  illegitimate,  illogical,  and  untrue. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  I79 

III.  THE  ARGUMENT. 

Seven  Specifications  under  three  Grounds  of  Appeal 
have  to  do  with  the  argument  of  the  defendant  and  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  with  reference  to  the  argument 
of  the  prosecution.  There  are  three  alleged  errors.  We 
shall  review  them  in  their  historical  order. 

I.    The  Logic  of  the  Case. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  mistake  or  injustice  in  the 
decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  logic  of 
the  case,  as  set  forth  under  Ground  5,  specifications  1st 
and  2d.  The  appellants  represent  that  the  case  was 
such  a  simple  one,  so  clear  and  definite  and  indubitable 
in  its  logic  that  there  was  no  room  for  a  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  Presbytery  as  to  the  verdict,  and  that  if 
there  had  been  no  prejudice  the  judgment  would  have 
been  :  "  guilty  as  charged." 

As  the  prosecution  state  the  logic  of  the  case  it  was 
very  simple.  The  Presbytery  decided  that  "  if  the  ac- 
cused had  taught  the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  charged, 
he  was  guilty  of  an  offence."  The  accused  admitted  the 
facts  as  set  forth  in  the  specifications ;  therefore  the 
Presbytery  should  have  judged  him  guilty.  That  is  their 
argument. 

Logic  is  of  essential  importance  in  this  case  and  in  all 
cases.  Logic  is  necessary  to  all  right  thinking,  to  all 
sound  doctrine,  to  all  equitable  law  and  to  all  good  prac- 
tice. But  logic,  like  all  true  and  good  things,  has  many 
counterfeits  and  shams.  A  little  experience  in  this  world 
teaches  us  all  that,  none  are  so  illogical  as  those  who 
boast  of  their  logic.  If  you  would  find  an  illogical  man 
you  will  find  him  in  one  who  constructs  a  syllogism  and 
points  you  to  the  conclusion  that  you  must  make  or  be 


ISO        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

regarded  as  illogical  and  prejudiced.  True  logic  needs 
no  defence,  no  advocate.  It  is  as  clear  and  bright  and  con- 
vincing as  the  beams  of  sunlight.  The  logic  of  the  ap- 
pellants is  at  fault  just  exactly  where  the  faults  always 
appear  with  these  logicians,  namely,  in  their  premises. 
Like  other  pretended  logicians  they  are  so  infatuated 
with  the  certainty  of  their  conclusions  that  they  have 
neglected  to  verify  their  premises. 

(i).  It  is  said  in  their  minor  premise  that  the  defendant 
admitted  the  facts  as  set  forth  in  the  several  specifications. 
This  premise  is  a  false  premise.  The  defendant  did  not 
admit  the  facts.  What  are  facts  according  to  law?  The 
Book  of  Discipline  prescribes : 

"  The  Charge  shall  set  forth  the  alleged  offence  ;  and 
the  specifications  shall  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to 
sustain  the  Charge."  (15.) 

The  law  requires  that  the  specifications  shall  set  forth 
the  facts.  It  is  argued  by  the  prosecution  that  inas- 
much as  the  defendant  admits  the  extracts  contained  in 
the  specifications  ;  therefore  he  admits  the  facts.  This 
is  their  logic,  but  it  is  leap  logic.  These  prosecutors  are 
skilful  jumpers.  True,  the  law  requires  that  the  specifi- 
cations shall  set  forth  the  facts  ;  but  do  they  set  forth 
the  facts?  Here  is  another  assumed  premise.  If  it  be 
true  that  the  defendant  admits  the  extracts,  are  the  ex- 
tracts facts,  or  does  he  admit  that  they  prove  the  facts  ? 
Here  again  these  marvellous  logicians  take  for  granted 
their  premises.     None  of  them  is  true. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  the  specifications  do  not  con- 
tain the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  Charge  and  the 
appellee  did  not  admit  the  facts.  The  appellee  admits 
that  the  proper  course  under  ordinary  circumstances 
would  have  been  for  him  to  show  that  the  specifications 
did  not  contain  the  facts,  when  he  made  his  Preliminary 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  1S| 

Objections.  The  reason  he  did  not  take  this  course  was 
that  he  yielded  to  the  desire  to  get  at  the  merits  of  the 
case  as  soon  as  possible  and  therefore  made  no  more 
legal  objections  than  were  necessary  to  guard  his  inter- 
ests at  the  start  and  because  he  saw  that  without  imperil- 
ling his  rights  he  might  make  this  additional  objection  in 
his  defence.  There  is  no  statute  law  and  there  is  no 
common  law  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  which  compels 
a  defendant  to  make  all  his  legal  objections  to  Charges 
and  Specifications  prior  to  trial.  The  course  which  the 
defendant  pursued  was  not  in  his  own  interest,  but  in  the 
interest  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  But  in  the 
course  of  his  argument  in  Defence,  the  defendant  called 
attention  to  the  specifications  as  not  containing  the  facts 
required  in  the  law  of  specification.  The  Presbytery 
permitted  him  so  to  do.  The  Prosecution  took  no  ex- 
ception to  this  procedure.  Therefore  it  must  be  regard- 
ed as  valid.  All  this  is  plain  from  the  following  extract 
from  the  Defence : 

"  (2)  The  doctrines  attributed  to  me  are  as  follows  : 

"  (A)  '  The  Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority,  which 
may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will  of 
God  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  mediation 
and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein.' 

"  {B)  '  The  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which, 
apart  from  the  Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten 
men.' 

"  {a)  The  prosecution  are  obliged  to  prove  these  doctrines  in 
their  specifications,  by  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  There  are 
two  specifications  under  each  charge.  These  specifications  con- 
sist of  four  groups  of  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  These  ex- 
tracts are  properly  proofs  of  some  fact  that  the  prosecution 
should  state.  But  what  do  they  propose  to  prove  ?  They  do 
not  tell  us  in  their  specifications.  If  the  extracts  are  statements 
of  fact  such  as  the  law  of  specification  requires,  where  are  the 


152        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

proofs  of  the  fact  ?     If  they  are  proofs,  where  are  the  statements 
of  fact  ? 

"  {l>)  But  suppose  we  take  them  as  both  facts  and  proofs  of 
fact,  inasmuch  as  they  are  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  We  are 
then  obliged  to  consider  the  question  of  their  relevancy  to  the 
charge.  I  am  obliged  to  admit  these  extracts,  and  you  are 
obliged  to  vote  that  the  specifications  are  true  so  far  as  the  ex- 
tracts are  concerned.  But  what  is  it  that  they  prove  ?  How  are 
you  to  bring  them  under  the  charge  .''  Consider  the  effect  of 
these  extracts  upon  the  several  members  of  the  court.  I  take  it 
that  my  statement  that '  Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority 
in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  did  find  God  enthroned  in  his 
own  soul,'  is  objectionable  to  many  of  you.  You  may  think  me 
guilty  of  error  or  of  indiscretion  in  making  such  a  statement. 
You  might  desire  to  condemn  me  on  that  account.  Would  you 
then  be  justified  in  voting  to  sustain  the  charge  for  that  reason  } 
On  consideration  you  will  see  that  there  are  several  links  in  a 
chain  of  argument  before  you  can  attach  this  statement  about 
Martineau  to  the  doctrine  attributed  to  me.  You  ought  to  test 
all  the  links  of  this  chain  before  you  can  honorably  condemn 
me  as  guilty  of  the  charge.  This  testing  ought  to  be  made 
under  the  specification.  The  only  way  to  accomplish  this  under 
present  circumstances  is  to  insert  in  these  specifications  the  doc- 
trine attributed  to  me  in  the  charge."     (The  D'fence,  pp.  29-30.) 


"  Only  by  thus  inserting  the  statement  of  fact  can  you  vote  in- 
telligently upon  this  specification.  This  is  the  form  in  which  I 
shall  bring  the  question  before  you. 

"  (c)  We  have  simply  to  determine  whether  the  doctrines 
attributed  to  me  are  sustained  by  the  extracts  given  from  the 
Inaugural.  I  admit  the  statements  that  'the  Reason  is  a  foun- 
tain of  divine  authority,"  and  'the  Church  is  a  fountain  of 
divine  authority.'  But  I  deny  all  the  rest  of  the  doctrines  attrib- 
uted to  me  in  the  form  and  in  the  language  in  which  the  prose- 
cution state  them  in  these  two  charges.  They  do  not  prove  and 
they  cannot  prove  from  the  Inaugural  that  I  teach  that  men  who 
reject  the  Scriptures  and  the  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  are 
savingly  enlightened  by  the  Reason  or  by  the  Church.  There 
are  no  express  statements  to  that  effect  in  the  Inaugural.  There 
are  no  statements  which  by  logical  deduction  involve  such  conclu- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  183 

sions.  You  cannot  hold  me  responsible  for  any  inferences  made 
from  my  statements  by  the  prosecution  or  by  yourselves,  whether 
such  inferences  appear  valid  to  you  or  not.  There  are  several 
invalid  assumptions  which  the  prosecution  are  forced  to  make 
before  they  can  convince  you  even  by  indirection  of  the  validity 
of  such  inferences. 

"  (3)  I  shall  waste  no  time  in  an  attempt  to  expound  the  doc- 
trines which  have  been  invented  by  the  prosecution  and  wrongly 
attributed  to  me,  but  I  shall  proceed  to  the  main  question  in 
ban   ."     (  The  Defence,  pp.  30-31. ) 

It  thus  appears  that  the  defendant  challenged  the 
specifications.  He  called  attention  to  the  specifications  as 
merely  giving  extracts  from  the  Inaugural  and  not  stat- 
ing what  the  facts  were  which  these  extracts  were  cited 
to  prove.  The  appellee  calls  your  attention  to  an  ex- 
tract from  the  standard  authority  in  Presbyterian  law, 
the  same  extract  given  in  my  demurrer  in  1891  : 

"  A  Libel  is  a  Law  Syllogism,  consisting  of  the  Proposition  or 
Relevancy,  which  is  founded  upon  the  Laws  of  God,  or  some 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution  agreeable  thereto,  as,  whosoever  is 
absent  from  publick  Divine  Service  on  the  Lord's  Day,  ought  to 
be  censured.  The  Second  Part  consists  of  the  subsumption  or 
probation,  which  condescends  on  matter  of  Fact,  viz.,  But  such 
a  person  did,  upon  such  or  such  a  Lord's  Day,  absent  unneces- 
sarily from  the  publick  Worship  of  God.  The  Third  Part  con- 
sists of  the  Conclusion  or  Sentence,  which  contains  a  Desire, 
that  the  Profaner  of  the  Lord's  Day,  according  to  the  Laws  and 
Customs  mentioned  in  the  first  part,  may  be  Censured." 

This  is  from  Walter  Stewart's  Collections, — the 
same  authority  referred  to  the  other  day  by  your  Stated 
Clerk  as  Pardovan. 

The  specifications  ought  to  have  contained  the  minor 
premises  of  the  Charges — for  only  in  that  way  could  the 
specifications  be  relevant  to  the  Charges.  The  defend- 
ant admitted  the  extracts.  But  inasmuch  as  there  was 
no  mention  of  fact,  which  these  extracts  were  presented 


184       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  prove,  he  did  not  admit  the  facts  by  admitting  the 
extracts.  The  court  will  observe  that  the  defendant 
took  no  advantage  of  the  prosecution  in  this  respect. 
He  showed  them  how  the  specifications  might  be  con- 
structed and  proceeded  to  his  defence  against  them  just 
as  if  they  had  been  thus  reconstructed  and  were  already 
in  the  right  form  before  the  Presbytery.  If  now  we  put 
the  minor  premise  of  the  Charge  in  these  specifications, 
let  us  see  exactly  what  the  defendant  admitted  and 
what  he  did  not  admit.  The  defendant  admitted  that 
he  taught : 

(i).  Errors  may  have  existed  in  the  original  text  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

(2).  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(3).  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  the  book  that 
bears  his  name. 

{4).  Sanctification  is  not  completed  at  death. 

These  four  things  the  defendant  admits  as  his  teach- 
ing. 

But  the  defendant  expressly  denies  that  he  taught : 

"  (A)  '  The  Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority,  which  may 
and  does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject  the 
Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will  of  God 
and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  rnediation  and 
sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein.' 

"  (B)  '  The  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which, 
apart  from  the  Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten 
men.' " 

Therefore  the  statement  that  the  defendant  admitted 
the  facts  when  he  admitted  the  extracts  in  the  specifica- 
tions is  untrue.  He  admitted  what  ought  to  have  been 
given  as  the  minor  premises  of  four  of  the  Charges,  and 
he  denied  what  ought  to  have  been  given  as  the  minor 
premises  of  two  of  the  Charges.  But  none  of  these 
minor  premises  were  in  the  specifications. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  185 

(2).  Let  tis  7101V  coftsider  the  major  premises  of  the 
Charges  : 

They  should  state  what  the  heresy  is,  namely,  contra- 
vention of  certain  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  of  Holy  Scripture,  which 
strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion.  Do  the  major  premises 
state  such  heresies  ?  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  prose- 
cution to  say  so.  They  must  prove  their  majors  as  well 
as  their  minors. 

Dr.  Lampe  argued  this  afternoon  that  anything  con- 
trary to  Holy  Scripture  is  an  ofTense,  even  though  it  be 
not  contained  in  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  that 
anything  contrary  to  the  standards  is  an  offense 
even  if  it  be  not  stated  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 
What  an  absurd  position  !  There  is  not  a  man  in  this 
Assembly  that  might  not  be  prosecuted  for  heresy  by 
some  ambitious  prosecutor  on  such  an  extensive  ground 
as  this  ;  exposed  to  prosecution  because  some  ambitious 
prosecuting  committee  do  not  agree  with  him  as  to  the 
interpretation  of  some  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  or  the 
standards  of  the  Church. 

I  have  stated  that  it  is  necessary  to  prove,  in  prose- 
cutions, that  the  doctrine  is  contrary  to  an  essential  and 
necessary  article  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Holy  Scripture, — of  them  both.  Neither  one  is  lawful 
alone.  That  is  the  only  safe  position  which  any  one  can 
occupy  or  which  the  Church  can  occupy. 

A  Presbytery  does  not  endorse  the  major  premise  of 
a  charge  when  it  resolves  that  the  proceedings  be  found 
in  order  and  that  the  charges  and  specifications  be  con- 
sidered sufficient.  This  is  the  error  of  the  prosecution. 
The  sufficiency  is  simply  according  to  the  book,  section 
22,  to  put  the  accused  on  his  defence,  and  that  is  all. 
Indeed,  the  chief  argument  throughout  the  defence  was 


186        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  show  that  these  major  premises  were  not  valid.  The 
Presbytery  Hstened  to  his  arguments.  They  were  not 
excepted  to  by  the  prosecution.  Therefore  this  pro- 
cedure is  now  unassailable. 

Consider  the  position  in  which  the  prosecution  had 
placed  themselves  by  their  invalid  charges  and  specifica- 
tions. They  put  all  the  proofs  from  Scripture  and 
Confession  under  the  specifications  when  they  ought  to 
have  put  them  under  the  charges.  The  Presbytery 
directed  them  to  make  the  transfer,  not  in  the  interest  of 
the  defendant,  but  in  the  interest  of  orderly  procedure. 
The  prosecution  appeal  to  you  to  reverse  this  transfer. 
It  is  not  in  the  interest  of  the  appellee  that  you  should 
refuse  them  ;  for  if  the  proofs  from  Scripture  and  Con- 
fession belong  under  the  specifications,  then  the  facts 
which  these  citations  should  prove  belong  under  the 
specifications  likewise.  Then  the  major  premises  of  the 
Charges  belong  to  the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the 
Charge.  If  that  be  so,  then  these  facts  were  certainly 
not  admitted  by  the  defendent.  Grant  them  their  claim 
as  to  the  proofs  and  they  forge  the  weapon  for  the  de- 
struction of  their  other  claims  as  to  the  admission  of 
the  defendant  and  you  would  be  obliged  to  recognize 
that  the  defendant  admitted  none  of  the  specifications. 
If,  however,  the  proofs  from  Scripture  and  Confession 
belong  under  the  Charge,  then  it  is  necessary  that  these 
proofs  should  be  used  to  sustain  the  major  premises  of 
the  Charge,  or  else  these  premises  are  destitute  of  proof. 
It  was  an  essential  part  of  the  argument  to  so  use  them. 
There  can  be  no  valid  premises  and  therefore  no  valid 
conclusion  without  them.  In  either  case  the  logic  of 
the  prosecution  is  leap  logic. 

Let  us  now  bring  before  us  what  was  the  exact  situa- 
tion with  regard  to  these  major  premises  of  the  Charges. 


TUE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  187 

The  prosecution  allege  conflict  with  seven  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  Westminster  Standards  and  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. 

A.  The  defendant  admitted  these  as  essential  doc- 
trines : 

(i).  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary. 
(2).  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
(3).  Holy  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  written. 
(4).  Holy  Scripture  is  immediately  inspired. 
He  also  claimed  that  he  himself  held  to  these  doc- 
trines and  in  no  way  contravened  them  by  his  teaching. 

B.  The  defendant  admitted  that  these  are  doctrines 
of  the  Confession  : 

(i).  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts. 

(2).  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture 
is  the  Scripture  itself. 

He  also  claimed  to  adhere  to  these  doctrines  although 
he  denied  that  they  were  essential  doctrines. 

C.  The  defendant  denied  that  it  was  an  essential  doc- 
trine or  that  it  was  any  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  or  Holy  Scripture :  "  That  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holi- 
ness." He  admitted  the  phrase  "at  their  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness,"  but  he  denied  the  phrase  ''at  once,'' 
which  the  prosecution  arbitrarily  inserted  in  the  West- 
minster definition  in  order  to  point  their  interpretation 
of  it. 

It  will  thus  be  plain  to  the  General  Assembly  that  the 
defendant  claimed  that  he  himself  holds  to  all  of  these 
doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession  except  the 
doctrine  contained  in  the  words  "  at  once  "  which  the 
prosecution  added  to  the  confessional  statement.  He 
also  admitted  that  four  of  them  were  essential  doctrines. 


188        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

(3).  It  is  claimed  by  the  prosecution  that  the  Presby- 
tery, when  it  resolved  that  the  Charges  were  sufficient, 
determined  the  relevmicy  of  the  major  and  minor  pre- 
mises. It  determined  the  relevancy  so  far  as  "  to  put 
the  accused  on  his  defence,"  but  it  did  not  determine 
the  relevancy  so  far  as  to  close  the  question  to  argu- 
ment. Possibly  this  question  of  relevancy  might  better 
have  been  raised  in  the  Preliminary  Objections,  I  think 
so  myself.  I  thought  so  before  the  argument  was  made. 
If  the  defendant  had  taken  this  course,  the  trial  would 
probably  never  have  taken  place,  or  if  it  had  taken  place 
it  would  have  been  prolonged  because  of  the  necessity 
of  going  over  the  whole  ground  of  the  case  twice,  first 
under  the  question  of  relevancy,  second  under  the  de- 
fence. The  defendant  was  not  shut  up  to  such  pro- 
cedure. He  deliberately  preferred  the  course  which  he 
pursued,  not  in  his  own  interest,  but  to  meet  the  desire 
of  the  Church  to  get  at  the  merits  of  the  case  as  soon 
as  possible.  He  was  within  his  rights  in  that  procedure. 
He  did  not  discuss  the  relevancy  of  the  premises  under 
his  Preliminary  Objections.  But  he  did  discuss  it  in 
his  Defence.  His  arguments  under  this  head  were  not 
questioned  by  the  Presbytery— they  were  not  questioned 
by  the  prosecutors.  No  exception  was  taken  to  them. 
They  must  be  regarded  as  valid  and  receive  the  atten- 
tion and  consideration  that  is  their  due  from  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

These  were  the  arguments  of  the  defendant  under 
this  head  of  relevancy  : 

"  The  charges  have  three  parts  :  (i)  the  doctrines  stated  as  the 
essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America ;  (2)  the 
doctrines  attributed  to  me  ;  and  (3)  the  charge  that  the  doctrines 
attributed  to  me  '  are  contrary  to  the  said  essential  doctrines.' 

"  Let  us  test  these  three  parts  in  their  order. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  189 

"  (i).  The  essential  doctrine  of  our  standards  is  said  to  be 
'  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  and  the  rule  of  faith 
and  practice.' 

"  It  is  plain  that  two  doctrines  are  here  stated.  The  two  doc- 
trines are  (i)  '  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,'  and 
(2)  '  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.'  These  two  doctrines  might 
have  been  embraced  under  a  more  general  statement  of  doctrine 
if  the  prosecution  had  chosen  to  do  so.  But  in  fact  they  state 
them  as  two  different  doctrines.  You  have  decided  to  try  them 
together,  but  to  vote  on  each  charge  separately. 

"  I  admit  that  the  doctrine,  '  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,'  is  an  essential  doctrme  of  our  Standards  and 
of  Holy  Scripture.  There  is  no  evidence  required  to  prove  that 
proposition  in  the  Charge.  I  admit  that  the  doctrine  that  '  Holy 
Scripture  is  most  necessary'  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
Confession.  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  statement  of 
that  doctrine  in  the  Westminster  Confession  is  essential  in  the 
form  of  its  expression.  But  whether  it  be  essential  or  not,  is 
immaterial.  I  do  not  care  to  argue  that  question,  for  the  reason 
that  I  firmly  believe  that  '  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  '  in 
that  exposition  of  the  phrase  which  the  context  and  the  lan- 
guage demand.  I  subscribe  to  both  of  these  doctrines  entirely, 
sincerely,  and  without  any  reservation  whatever.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  there  is  a  difference  of  interpretation  of  these  two 
doctrines  between  the  prosecution  and  the  defendant.  They 
have  the  right  to  prove  that  their  interpretation  is  the  necessary 
interpretation,  and  that  my  interpretation  is  the  incorrect  inter- 
pretation. They  have  given  you  no  such  proof."  {The  Defence, 
pp.  22-23.) 

Then  after  testing  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  cited 
by  the  prosecution,  it  was  said  : 

"  We  have  examined  the  nine  passages  from  Holy  Scripture 
cited  by  the  prosecution.  Some  of  them  establish  the  doctrine 
that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  which  doctrine  we  do  not 
deny.  But  none  of  them  are  in  conflict  with  the  declarations 
made  in  the  Inaugural."     {The  Defence,  p.  28.) 

The  prosecution  seem  to  hold  the  opinion  that 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  supreme  judge  in  religion.     That 


190       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

is   not    the   confessional   statement.     The   confessional 
statement  is : 

"  It  is  not  Holy  Scripture  which  is  the  supreme  Judge,  it  is  the 
Holy  spirit,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  alone.  Holy  Scripture  is  that  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks,  and  He  speaks  bearing  witness  by 
and  with  the  word  in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  The  Holy  Spirit 
speaks  to  the  reason  of  the  godly  man  through  Holy  Scripture  and 
gives  him  the  ultimate  decision  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  practice. 

"  I  never  taught  any  other  doctrme.  If  any  one  thinks  that 
this  doctrine  conflicts  with  the  doctrine  that  the  Reason  is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  he  thinks  wrongly  and  is  apart 
from  the  true  lines  of  logical  reasoning.  The  Confession  does 
not  here  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  speak  in  the  Reason 
apart  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  so  speaking,  speak  with  divine 
authority.  It  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  supreme  Judge. 
He  is  the  supreme  Judge  wherever  and  whenever  and  in  what- 
ever form  He  speaks.  The  Confession  is  only  concerned  to  teach 
that  it  is  when  speaking  in  the  Holy  Scripture  that  He  is  the 
supreme  Judge,  and  that  when  so  speaking  the  Church  must 
yield  allegiance  whatever  may  have  been  the  decrees  of  coun- 
cils or  opinions  of  ancient  writers  ;  and  that  private  spirits  must 
obey,  whatever  the  doctrines  of  men  may  have  been  ;  in  other 
words  that  Church  and  Reason  must  yield  to  the  supreme  Judge, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  when  speaking  in  Holy  Scripture.  I  have  not 
said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  the  final  word  in  the  Reason  to 
which  the  Church  and  the  Bible  must  yield.  I  have  not  exalted 
the  Reason  above  the  Bible.  I  am  no  Rationalist.  It  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Confession  to  which  I  subscribe,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  when  He  speaks  the  infallible  word  in  Holy  Scripture  al- 
ways speaks  through  the  Scripture  to  the  Reason,  and  by  His  in- 
ward work  in  the  heart,  in  the  Reason,  gives  certainty,  assurance, 
and  infallible  conviction  of  the  truth  and  grace  of  God.  There 
is  no  conflict  between  Reason  and  Scripture  in  such  a  case. 
There  can  be  none.  The  Holy  Spirit  unites  them  in  an  infallible 
bond  of  certainty. 

"  The  prosecution  also  cite  in  evidence  several  answers  to  ques- 
tions in  the  Catechisms  which  teach  that  Holy  Scripture  is  '  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience,'  'the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how 
we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  Him.'  .... 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  191 

"  The  aim  of  the  Inaugural  Address  was  not  to  vindicate  the 
Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  ;  certainly  not  to  say  anything  which  could 
directly  or  indirectly  militate  against  that  essential  doctrine.  If 
that  had  been  my  aim  I  would  have  made  it  my  theme.  My  aim 
was  to  set  forth  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  there- 
fore the  title  given  to  the  Address  was  'The  Authority  of  Holy 
Scripture.'  That  was  its  theme,  that  was  the  objective  point  of 
its  argument  and  its  rhetoric.  It  aimed  to  remove  every  stum- 
bling-block set  up  by  the  traditional  dogma  in  the  way  of  the 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  endeavored  to  set  forth  the  au- 
thority of  Holy  Scripture  by  adducing  such  evidence  from  Scrip- 
ture itself  as  every  reasonable  man  might  understand  and  esti- 
mate at  its  intrinsic  value. 

"  It  is  not  charged  that  I  deny  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  complaint  is  that  I  do  not  make  the  authority  of  the  Bible 
sufficiently  great  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  But  this 
complaint  is  without  justification,  for  it  is  not  necessary  to  main- 
tain that  the  Bible  is  the  only  authority  in  matters  of  religion, 
or  the  only  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  or  the  only  chan- 
nel of  divine  guidance,  in  order  to  maintain  consistently  that 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  May  not  the 
light  of  nature  have  divine  authority  ?     Listen  to  the  Confession  : 

"'Although  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence  do  so  far  manifest  the  greatness  and  power  of 
God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable.'  (I.  i.) 

"  If  the  light  of  nature  so  manifest  the  greatness  and  power  of 
God — does  it  not  bear  divine  authority  ? 

"  Listen  to  Holy  Scripture  : 

"  '  For  when  the  Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature 
the  thmgs  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a 
law  unto  themselves,  which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in 
their  hearts,  their  conscience,  also  bearing  witness  and  their 
thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another.' 
(Rom.  I.  19,  20.) 

"  There  is  a  divine  law  in  the  heart  and  conscience  of  men. 
Paul  here  teaches  that  this  law  is  divine,  but  it  is  not  infallible. 

"  Is  It  a  necessary  consequence  that  '  the  rule  '  should  be  '  the 
only  great  fountain  of  divine  authority'.'  I  claim  that  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  and  yet  not  a  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.     I  shall  explain  this  further  on.     But  I  am 


192       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

not  obliged  to  explain  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  prosecution  to 
prove  that  there  is  irreconcilable  conflict  here.  They  do  not  pro- 
pose this  in  their  charge.  They  have  not  proffered  any  evidence 
of  it.  They  have  simply  assumed  it,  and  they  have  asked  you  to 
take  this  leap  (rver  a  chasm  of  difference  in  order  to  give  an  illogic- 
al verdict."     (  The  Defence^  pp.  42-44.) 

The  Church. 

"  I  DECLARED  in  the  Inaugural  that  '  Thf  Church  is  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority.'  I  make  the  same  declaration  in 
your  presence  at  this  time.  I  shall  show  you  that  this  declara- 
tion is  not  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Westminster 
Standards,  but  on  the  other  hand  that  it  is  so  important  a  doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  that  to  deny  it 
would  be  heresy. 

"  I  have  already  tested  under  the  first  charge  the  nine  passages 
of  Scripture  cited  by  the  prosecution  under  both  the  first  and  the 
second  charges,  and  I  have  shown  that  there  is  no  relevancy  in 
them  to  either  charge. 

"  I  have  also  considered  the  several  passages  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Standard  which  are  also  the  same  under  both  charges,  and 
have  shown  that  they  do  not  teach  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the 
sole  fountain  of  divine  authority ;  and  that  they  leave  room  for 
.  the  Reason  as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  It  seems  unneces- 
sary for  me  to  review  them  again  and  show  that  they  also  leave 
room  for  the  Church  as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  I  shall 
use  my  time  therefore  in  the  positive  argument  from  Confession 
and  Holy  Scripture  in  support  of  my  thesis.  The  prosecution 
claim  that  the  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority  is  contrary  to  the  doctrines  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is 
most  necessary,  and  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  any  intelligent  man  can  leap  the  gulf  between 
these  two  propositions ;  or  how  any  Churchman,  Roman  Catho- 
lic, Greek  Catholic,  Anglican,  Lutheran,  Presbyterian,  or  Con- 
gregationalist  can  deny  that  divine  authority  speaks  and  acts 
through  the  Church.  If  an  ancient  Puritan  or  a  Westminster 
divine  could  descend  from  Paradise  into  this  Presbytery  to-day, 
he  would  be  filled  with  astonishment  that  a  Presbytery  of  a 
Church  that  calls  itself  Presbyterian  could  have  so  far  abandoned 
the  faith  of  the  Puritan  fathers,  as  to  permit  the  prosecution  to 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  193 

charge  a  minister  with  heresy  for  maintaining  that  there  is 
divine  authority  in  the  Church.  I  am  well  a\fare,  as  was  stated 
m  the  book  '  Whither?  '  that  modern  Presbyterians  have  depart- 
ed far  away  from  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Church  and 
the  sacraments;  but  who  could  have  imagined  that  a  man  would 
be  charged  with  heresy  for  holding  to  the  Westminster  doctrine 
and  mamtaining  it  against  the  errors  of  modern  dogmaticians? 
It  is  significant  that  the  Westminster  Confession  gives  seven 
chapters  (XXV.-XXXI.)  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the 
sacraments,  doctrines  as  essential  and  necessary  to  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Westminster  Confession  as  the  dqctrine 
of  Holy  Scripture  contained  in  the  first  chapter.  The  prosecu- 
tion do  not  cite  against  me  a  single  sentence  from  these  seven 
chapters  when  they  charge  me  with  error  in  teaching  that  the 
Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  If  this  be  an  error,  it 
touches  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture,  and  one  would  expect  to  find  something  in  these 
seven  chapters  that  would  give  the  Westminster  decision  of  this 
most  important  question.  To  these  chapters  I  sincerely  sub- 
scribe, and  I  challenge  the  sincerity  of  the  subscription  to  these 
chapters  of  any  man  who  denies  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain 
of  divine  authority."     (7'hi!  Defence,  pp.  67-69.) 

Co-ordinating  the  Fountains. 

"  I  said  in  the  Ifiaugural  that '  Men  are  influenced  by  their  tem- 
peraments and  environments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access 
to  God  they  may  pursue.'  This  was  made  the  ground  of  a  dis- 
tinct specification  under  the  original  ist  Charge.  The  sentence 
,  is  cited  among  the  extracts  in  the  specification,  and  may  therefore 
be  regarded  as  one  of  my  declarations  which  is  offered  as  contrary 
to  essential  doctrine.  It  will  explain  my  meaning  over  against 
misrepresentations  of  it  which  were  made  in  Specification  IV.  of 
the  original  first  charge  and  in  the  argument  of  the  prosecution. 

"  I  did  not  say  that  men  were  determined  by  their  environ- 
ments, but  influenced  by  their  environments.  No  man  ever  came 
to  God  without  the  prevenient  call  of  God's  Spirit.  No  one  ever 
found  God  in  the  Reason  until  God  Himself  entered  into  the 
Reason  to  make  Himself  known  there.  No  one  ever  found  God 
in  the  Bible  until  the  Holy  Spirit  pointed  the  way.    No  one  ever 


194       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

found  God  in  the  Church,  until  Christ's  touch  opened  his  eyes. 
Men  are  indeed  inluenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environ- 
ments. That  is  a  matter  of  common  experience.  All  are  not 
Churchmen ;  all  are  not  Evangelicals ;  all  are  not  Rationalists. 
But  all  may  be  Christians,  using  each  one  the  avenue  of  religion 
most  familiar  to  him  and  most  suited  to  him.  But  in  any  case  it 
is  the  divine  Spirit  who  determines  when,  and  where,  and  how 
the  effectual  call  shall  be  made ;  and  when,  and  where,  and  how 
the  transforming  grace  shall  be  imparted  and  the  infallible  assur- 
ance of  faith  bestowed. 

"  It  is  said  that  I  am  co-ordinating  the  Bib'e,  the  Church,  and 
the  Reason.  The  prosecution  did  not  put  this  in  their  charge. 
But  they  have  put  it  into  the  minds  of  some  of  this  court  in  their 
argument  and  it  may  influence  your  decision. 

"  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  have  denied  more  than  once 
that  I  co-ordinated  the  three  fountains  of  divine  authority.  I 
denied  it  in  the  Appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  my  Inaugural 
as  follows  :  '  I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right 
to  infer  from  anything  whatever  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or  in 
any  of  my  writings,  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason  '  (p.  85). 

"  I  denied  it  again  in  my  lectures  on  'The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason,'  where  I  said:  'The  Churchmen  have  exalted 
the  Church  above  the  Bible  and  the  Reason.  The  Rationalists 
have  exalted  the  Reason  above  the  Bible  and  the  Church.  The 
Evangelical  party  have  exalted  the  Bible  above  the  Church  and 
the  Reason ;  but  no  party,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  made  Bible. 
Church,  and  Reason  co-ordinate,  that  is,  on  the  same  level,  in 
the  same  order,  of  equal,  independent  authority  '  (p.  63). 

"  And  again  :  '  The  only  persons,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  have 
ever  thought  of  co-ordinating  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason  as  fountains  of  divine  authority,  are  some  recent  contro- 
versialists who  impute  to  others  their  own  misconceptions,  or 
who,  after  the  manner  of  scholastic  logicians,  invent  imaginary 
opponents  in  order  to  show  their  dialectic  skill  in  destroying 
them  '  (p.  210). 

"  You  cannot  constrain  me  to  accept  the  inferences  of  others. 
You  must  in  law  accept  my  explanations.  When  I  say,  'The 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  are  historically  three  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority,'  can  you  rightly  infer  that  I  co- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  I95 

ordinate  the  three?  How  about  the  apostle  John  in  the  ist 
epistle,  V.  8,  9,  when  he  says  : 

"'For  there  are  three  who  bear  witness,  the  Spirit,  and  the 
water,  and  the  blood  :  and  the  three  agree  in  one.  If  we  receive 
the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater :  for  tbe  wit- 
ness of  God  is  this,  that  he  hath  borne  witness  concerning  his 
Son.' 

"  Are  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood  co-ordinate  witnesses  ? 
Listen  to  Bishop  Westcott. 

•'  Westcott  argues  that  the  water  and  the  blood  refer  not  only 
to  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  on  the 
cross,  but  to  the  two  sacraments :  'Just  as  the  Spirit  is  found  to 
be  personal  in  His  work  with  men,  so  also  the  water  and  the 
blood  speak  personally  through  those  in  whom  their  efficacy  is 
realized.  The  participle  expresses  the  actual  delivery  of  the  wit- 
ness, and  this  as  a  present,  continuous  action.  The  witness  here 
is  considered  manifestly  as  the  living  witness  of  the  Church,  and 
not  as  the  historic  witness  of  the  gospels.  Through  believers 
these  three,  "the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood,"  perform 
a  work  not  for  believers  only,  but  for  the  world  (John  xvii.  20  f).' 

"  '  The  threefold  witness  of  which  St.  John  has  spoken,  simply  as 
being  threefold,  satisfies  the  conditions  of  human  testimony. 
Much  more  then,  he  argues,  does  a  threefold  divine  witness  meet 
ail  claims,  and  such  a  witness  it  is  implied  we  have  in  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood.  This  witness,  there- 
fore, is  "  greater  "  than  the  v/itness  of  men  in  regard  to  its  au- 
thority.' 

"  Here  we  have  three  witnesses  giving  divine  testimony  to  our 
Saviour,  without  any  reference  to  Holy  Scripture :  two  of  them 
the  sacraments,  and  therefore  necessarily  the  Church,  one  of 
them  the  divine  Spirit.  This  passage  not  only  shows  that  there 
can  be  three  witnesses  speaking  with  divine  authority,  and  yet 
not  co-ordinate  ;  but  it  also  shows  that  the  two  sacraments  of  the 
Church  bear  in  them  and  with  them  divine  authority.  This  Pres- 
bytery will  hardly  undertake  to  declare  Bishop  Westcott  a  here- 
tic, especially  when  Luther  and  so  many  of  the  Fathers  are  at  his 
back.       {^The  Defence,  pp.  81-83.) 


196       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

What  IS  Plenary  Inspiration  f 

"  I  agree  to  the  doctrines  (i)  that '  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word 
of  God  written ';  (2)  '  immediately  inspired  ';  and  (3)  '  the  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.' 

"  Do  these  statements  necessarily  involve  the  doctrine  that 
there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  ?  (a)  The  doctrine  that 
'  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice '  clearly 
does  not  involve  that  'the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  rule  in  mat- 
ters other  than  faith  and  practice.'  If  I  find  fallibility  in  Holy 
Scripture  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  I  am  inconsistent  with 
the  Confession.  But,  in  the  Inaugural,  I  expressly  disclaimed 
such  fallibility.  This  disclaimer  is  recognized  in  the  citations, 
from  my  Inaugural  given  by  the  prosecution : 

"  '  The  Bible  has  maintained  its  authority  with  the  best  schol- 
ars of  our  time,  who  with  open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recog- 
nize any  error  that  might  be  pointed  out  by  historical  criticism  ; 
for  these  errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in  the  es- 
sentials ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel 
itself ;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of  the  Bible  that  theolo- 
gians commonly  account  for  from  the  providential  superintend- 
ence of  the  mind  of  the  Author  as  distinguished  from  divine  rev- 
elation itself.  It  may  be  that  this  providential  superintendence 
gives  infallible  guidance  in  every  particular ;  and  it  may  be  that 
it  differs  but  little,  if  at  all,  from  the  providential  superintend- 
ence of  the  fathers  and  schoolmen  and  theologians  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  It  is  not  important  for  our  purpose  that  we  should 
decide  this  question.  If  we  should  abandon ' — [I  did  not  say  I 
did  abandon.  I  am  speaking  as  an  apologist.  '  If  we  abandon]  the 
whole  field  of  providential  superintendence  so  far  as  inspiration 
and  divme  authority  are  concerned,  and  limit  divine  inspiration 
and  authority  to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible,  to  its  re- 
ligion, faith,  and  morals,  we  would  still  have  ample  room  to  seek 
divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  essential,  or  even  important,  in 
the  teaching  that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking,  and  our 
conduct '  (p.  22). 

"The  only  errors  T  have  found  or  ever  recognized  in  Holy 
Scripture  have  been  beyond  the  range  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
therefore  they  do  not  impair  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  jg^r 

"  Bat  it  is  claimed  that  if  1  recognize  errors  in  matters  beyond 
tiie  range  of  faith  and  practice,  I  excite  suspicion  as  to  the  infal- 
libility of  Holy  Scripture  within  the  range  of  faith  and  practice. 
You  are  entitled  to  that  opinion  for  yourselves,  but  you  have  no 
right  to  force  your  opinion  upon  me.  The  Confession  does  not 
say  '  rule  of  all  things,'  but  '  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.'  You 
must  judge  by  the  Confession,  not  by  your  fears,  or  your  impres- 
sions, or  by  the  conclusions  you  have  made.  But  is  it  true  that 
fallibility  in  the  Bible  in  matters  beyond  the  scope  of  the  divine 
revelation  impairs  the  infallibility  in  matters  within  the  scope  of 
divine  revelation  ?  We  claim  that  it  does  not.  The  sacred  writ- 
ings were  not  composed  in  heaven  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  were 
not  sent  down  from  heaven  by  angel  hands,  they  were  not  com- 
mitted to  the  care  of  perfect  men,  they  were  not  kept  by  a  suc- 
cession of  perfect  priests  from  that  moment  until  the  present 
time.  If  these  had  been  the  facts  in  the  case,  we  might  have  had 
a  Bible  infallible  in  every  particular.  But  none  of  these  things 
are  true.  God  gave  His  Holy  Word  to  men  in  an  entirely  differ- 
ent way.  He  used  the  human  reason  and  all  the  faculties  of  im- 
perfect human  nature.  He  used  the  voice  and  hands  of  imper- 
fect men.  He  allowed  the  sacred  writings  to  be  edited  and  re- 
edited,  arranged  and  rearranged  and  rearranged  again  by  imper- 
fect scribes.  It  is  improbable  that  such  imperfect  instrumentali- 
ties should  attain  perfect  results.  It  was  improbable  that  fallible 
men  should  produce  a  series  of  writings  infallible  in  every  re- 
spect. It  was  sufficient  that  divine  inspiration  and  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  should  make  their  writings  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  the  divine  energy  should  push 
the  human  and  the  fallible  into  the  external  forms,  into  the  un- 
essential and  unnecessary  matters,  into  the  human  setting  of  the 
divine  ideals.  As  the. river  of  life  flowing  forth  from  the  throne 
of  God,  according  to  Ezekiel's  Vision,  entering  into  the  Dead  Sea 
quickens  its  waters  and  fills  them  with  new  life,  so  that  'every- 
thing shall  live  whithersoever  the  river  cometh  '  .  .  .  '  But  the 
miry  places  thereof  and  the  marshes  thereof  shall  not  be  healed  * 
(Ez.  xlvii.  9-11) ;  so  may  it  be  with  that  divine  influence  which 
we  call  inspiration  when  it  flows  into  a  man.  It  quickens  and 
enriches  his  whole  nature,  his  experience,  his  utterance,  his  ex- 
pressions, with  truth  and  life  divine,  and  yet  leaves  some  human 
infirmities  unhealed  in  order  that  the  revelation  may  be  essen- 


198        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

tially  divine  and  infallible,  and  yet  bear  traces  of  the  human  and 
fallible  into  the  midst  of  which  it  came. 

"  You  will  sometimes  hear  the  proverb  cited  :  '  Falsus  in  uno, 
falsus  in  omnibus.'  But  this  ancient  proverb  has  no  manner  of 
application  to  the  matter  in  hand.  It  does  not  refer  to  errors  of 
ignorance  or  inadvertence,  but  to  errors  of  deceit  and  falsehood. 
If  it  could  be  shown  that  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  any 
of  them,  were  written  with  the  intent  of  deceiving  and  mislead- 
ing men,  then  we  could  not  trust  them  as  infallible  in  matters  of 
faith  and  practice.  But  the  errors  that  have  been  found  in  the 
Bible  are  not  errors  of  deceit  but  of  inadvertence,  not  of  falsehood 
but  of  lack  of  knowledge.  A  witness  in  a  court  of  justice  is  not 
rejected  because  he  betrays  ignorance  and  slips  into  errors  of 
detail,  which  may  have  resulted  from  carelessness  and  inatten- 
tion. His  evidence  is  all  the  stronger  for  these  marks  of  sim- 
plicity and  the  faults  of  common  people.  A  witness  who  makes 
no  mistake  is  open  to  suspicion,  lest  his  testimony  may  have 
been  prepared  for  the  occasion  by  his  advocate  or  himself.  His- 
torical documents  are  not  cast  aside  as  worthless  because  they 
contain  errors.  No  historic  document  can  be  found  that  is  alto- 
gether infallible.  Even  the  Pope  of  Rome  does  not  claim  in- 
fallibility in  all  things,  in  his  utterances  at  the  table  and  on  the 
street,  in  his  conversation  with  his  friends  about  literature,  art, 
science,  or  philosophy,  war,  or  finance,  but  only  when  sitting  in 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter  he  speaks,  ex  cathedra,  as  the  vicar  of 
Christ,  in  his  official  position  as  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals.  I  refer  you  to  the  testimony 
presented  to  the  court  and  read  from  '  Biblical  Study,' 
pp.  240-243,  and  'The  Bible,  the  Church,  afid  the  Reason,' 
pp.  1 1 5-1 17,  as  setting  forth  the  views  which  I"  have  held  for 
many  years  on  this  subject,  and  I  ask  you.  to  consider  whether 
they  are  in  conflict  with  the  Biblical  or  Confessional  doctrine  of 
the  rule  of  faith. 

"  It  is  evident  that  I  and  others  can  hold  that  Holy  Scripture 
is  '  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,'  and  yet  hold 
that  there  are  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  in  matters  that  do  not  in 
any  way  impair  its  infallibility  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice. 

"  (b)  The  charge  of  the  prosecution  is,  that  errors  in  Holy 
Scripture  conflict  with  the  essential  doctrine  that  '  Holy  Script- 
ure is  the  Word  of  God  written.'     The  prosecution  may  think 


THE  LOGIC  OF   THE  CASE  J  99 

that  there  is  conflict  here,  but  they  are  mistaken.  The  reason 
why  they  see  conflict  is  because  they  interpret  '  Word  of  God 
written '  differently  from  what  I  do.  They  put  into  this  doc- 
trine in  their  original  Specification,  '  true  and  full  inspiration,' 
meaning  so  far  as  we  can  determine — (i)  Plenary  inspiration  ; 
(2)  Verbal  inspiration  ;  (3)  Inerrancy.  Let  me  remark  at  the 
outset  that  although  I  admit  the  phrase  'true  and  full  inspira- 
tion,' it  is  not  a  phrase  of  the  Confession  or  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  only  phrase  of  the  Confession  used  by  them  in  this  state- 
ment is  '  the  Word  of  God  written.'  I  hold  to  the  '  true  inspiration 
of  the  Word  of  God  written,'  but  I  also  hold  that  there  are  errors 
in  Holy  Scripture,  and  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  between 
these  statements.  The  inconsistency  is  in  the  mind  of  the  prose- 
cutors because  they  already  include  in  the  term  full  inspiration, 
verbal  inspiration  and  inerrancy  ;  whereas  I  use  plenary,  or  full, 
in  the  grammatical  and  historical  sense  as  referring  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  words.  When  we  say  that  a  lamp  is  full  of  oil,  we 
do  not  mean  that  the  lamp  is  oil,  but  that  it  contains  oil  in  the 
receptacle  which  it  incloses.  When  I  say  the  Scriptures  are  full 
of  divine  inspiration,  I  mean  that  the  Scriptures  as  writings  are 
filled  full  with  an  inspired  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  which  rule  fills 
and  pervades  Scripture  in  all  its  parts.  I  have  the  authority  of 
John  Wallis,  a  clerk  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  for  this 
view,  when  he  says  : 

"  'The  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  a  Lanthorn  rather  than  a 
Light ;  they  shine,  indeed,  but  it  is  alteno  luniine  ;  it  is  not  their 
own,  but  a  borrowed  light.  It  is  God  which  is  the  true  light 
that  shines  to  u?  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  they  have  no  other  light 
in  them,  but  as  they  represent  to  us  somewhat  of  God,  and  as 
they  exhibit  and  hold  forth  God  to  us,  who  is  the  true  light  that 
"  enlighteneth  every  man  that  comes  into  the  world."  It  is  a 
light,  then,  as  it  represents  God  urtto  us,  who  is  the  original 
light.  It  transmits  some  rays  ;  some  beams  of  the  divine  nature  ; 
but  they  are  refracted,  or  else  we  should  not  be  able  to  behold 
them.  They  lose  much  of  their  original  lustre  *by  passing 
through  this  medium,  and  appear  not  so  glorious  to  us  as  they 
are  in  themselves.  They  represent  God's  simplicity  obliquated 
and  refracted,  by  reason  of  many  inadequate  conceptions  ;  God 
condescending  to  the  weakness  of  our  capacity  to  speak  to  us  in 
our  own  dialect.'  (John  Wallis,  '  Sermon,'  Lond.,  1791,  pp. 
127,  128.)  "     {The  Defence,  pp.  88-93.) 


200       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

The  Will  of  God  Conunitted  to  Writing. 

"  (a)  The  Confession  represents  that  ....  God  '  committed 
wholly  unto  writing ' '  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which 
is  necessary  unto  salvation.'  This  statement  I  sincerely  adopt. 
But  note  what  was  committed  '  wholly  unto  writing ':  '  the 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salva- 
tion ' — nothing  more  ;  not  the  knowledge  of  geography,  not  the 
knowledge  of  chronology,  not  the  knowledge  of  correct  cita- 
tions, not  exactness  in  names  of  persons  and  things,  unless  you 
can  prove  that  these  are  necessary  to  salvation.  This  statement 
of  the  Confession  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  '  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  ';  it  is  hardly  as  much,  because  there  are  some 
matters  of  faith  and  practice  which  may  not  be  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. This  statement  does  not  touch  upon  knowledge  not 
necessary  to  salvation.  If  there  are  errors  in  such  matters  as 
are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  what  has  that  to  do  with  this  pas- 
sage ?  When  it  is  said  that  God  committed  that  wholly  unto 
writing,  does  it  teach  that  God  Himself  committed  to  writing. 
or  does  it  imply  the  use  of  holy  penmen  ?  Manifestly  the  latter. 
If  then  God  used  holy  penmen  to  commit  this  knowledge  to 
writing,  you  cannot  conclude  that  these  penmen  did  not  commit 
to  writing,  together  with  this  knowledge  of  God  necessary  to 
salvation,  other  knowledge  which  was  not  necessary  to  salva- 
tion ;  and  if  so,  you  cannot  conclude  that  there  were  no  errors 
in  that  matter  which  these  men  wrote,  unless  you  can  also  prove 
that  God  commissioned  them  to  commit  this  also  to  writing. 
You  cannot  prove  any  such  thing  from  this  passage  of  the  Con- 
fession which  limits  itself  to  '  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation.' 
Further,  '  commit  to  writing '  does  not  imply  any  more  than  that 
this  knowledge  of  God  necessary  to  salvation  is  wholly  in  these 
writings.  It  does  not  imply  that  the  words  which  contain  this 
knowledge  are  inspired,  or  that  they  may  not  be  connected  with 
human  and  fallible  material."     {The  Defence,  pp.  92-93.) 

'  The  Word  of  God  Written.' 

"  (d)  The  phrase  '  the  Word  of  God  written,'  in  the  first  clause 
of  Section  2d  of  Chapter  I.,  seems  to  have  great  importance  in 
the  minds  of  the  prosecution.  I  fail  to  see  what  use  they  can 
make  of  it  in  proof  of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture.    This 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  201 

section  gives  a  list  of  the  canonical  books  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
prefaces  the  list  with  the  statement,  '  Under  the  name  of  Holy 
Scripture,  or  the  Word  of  God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  are  these,'  etc. 

"This  is  a  cfomprehensive  statement  which  simply  amounts  to 
this :  that  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  so  forth,  are  books  of  Holy 
Scripture,  that  is,  '  the  Word  of  God  written.'  '  Word  of  God 
written  '  is  only  an  explanation  of  the  term  '  Holy  Scripture.'  It 
may  be  that  the  prosecution  have  in  mind  some  hidden  sense  of 
this  passage  which  they  have  not  yet  brought  out  to  the  light  of 
■day,  but,  with  the  best  study  that  I  can  give  it,  it  amounts  to 
nothmg  more  than  that  Genesis  is  the  written  Word  of  God, 
Exodus  is  the  written  Word  of  God,  that  is,  is  Holy  Scripture, 
etc.,  etc.  1  certainly  hold  to  this.  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  the 
entire  list  of  writings  given  in  this  section  are  the  Word  of  God, 
constituent  parts  of  Holy  Scripture.  I  do  not  know  why  the 
prosecution  cite  this  phrase  unless  they  think  that  it  is  contrary 
to  my  statement  when  I  say  :  '  The  Bible,  as  a  book,  is  paper, 
print,  and  binding — nothing  more.  It  is  entitled  to  reverent 
handling  for  the  sake  of  its  holy  contents  because  it  contains  the 
divine  word  of  redemption  for  man,  and  not  for  any  other  reason 
whatever  "  (p.  30).  This  extract  was  used  in  the  original  Speci- 
fication. It  is  left  out  of  the  present  Charge.  But  was  the 
Bible,  as  written  by  the  sacred  penmen,  a  book  with  paper,  print, 
and  binding?  We  think  not.  All  these  are  quite  modern. 
What  printer  was  ever  inspired,  what  paper-maker  ever  com- 
municated divine  authority  to  the  paper,  what  binder  ever  im- 
parted salvation  through  his  tools  to  the  binding  ?  I  gave  the 
true  reason  for  reverent  handling  of  the  Bible.  My  language 
indeed  is  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  first  section  of  the  Confession. 
The  Confession  says :  '  It  pleased  God  to  commit  the  knowledge 
of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  wholly 
unto  writing.'  I  said  :  '  for  the  sake  of  its  holy  contents  because 
it  contains  the  word  of  redemption  for  man.'  I  do  not  see  how 
my  language  could  be  any  nearer  to  the  Confessional  language 
unless  I  cited  the  Confession  word  for  word."  {JThe  Defence,  pp. 
93-94.) 


202       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Holy  Scripture  is  the   Word  of  God. 

"  {c)  The  prosecution  cite  Section  4th  in  order  to  prove  that 
the  Confession  teaches  that  Holy  Scripture  is  '  the  Word  of 
God.'  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  The  prosecution  seem 
to  interpret  it  as  if  it  meant  that  Holy  Scripture  is  so  the  Word 
of  God  that  every  sentence  and  word  in  it  is  divine  and  infalli- 
ble. But  the  Confession  certainly  does  not  say  this,  and  it  evi- 
dently does  not  mean  this. 

"  I  have  shown  that  we  cannot  take  the  statement  of  one  of 
the  three  doctrinal  standards  as  of  essential  importance  unless 
it  correspond  with  the  statements  of  the  other  documents,  and 
that  we  must  so  interpret  the  varying  phrases  of  the  three  stand- 
ards «ts  to  get  a  doctrine  which  will  be  consistent  with  the  phras- 
ing of  them  all.  The  Larger  Catechism  teaches  that  '  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of 
God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience.'  But  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  the  last  of  the  three  documents  to  be  composed,  and 
which  presupposes  the  other  two,  teaches  that  '  the  Word  of 
God  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and 
enjoy  him.'  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine of  Holy  Scripture  must  be  so  constructed  as  to  enable  us 
to  say,  '  the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God,'  as  well  as  to  say, 
'  is  the  Word.'  There  are  two  extremes  of  statement  which  are 
both  inconsistent  with  the  Westminster  statement.  If,  on  the 
one  hand,  you  take  the  statement  of  the  Shorter  Catechism 
and  say,  Holy  Scripture  contains  the  Word  of  God  in  its  chief 
doctrines,  but  there  are  some  doctrines  of  faith  and  rules  of  life 
which  are  not  the  Word  of  God ;  then  you  cannot  subscribe  to 
the  statement,  '  is  the  Word  of  God.'  So,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  you  take  the  statement  of  the  Larger  Catechism  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  say,  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  in  all  its 
parts,  thoughts  and  words,  sentences  and  linguistic  expression, 
then  you  cannot  subscribe  to  the  statement,  '  contains  the  Word 
of  God.'  The  true  Westminster  doctrine  is  the  same  that  we ' 
have  already  seen,  that  the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God  in 
that  it  contains  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  it  is  the  Word 
of  God  because  this  rule  of  faith  and  practice  so  fills  and  per- 
vades and  controls  Holy  Scripture  as  to  make  it  to  all  intents 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  203 

and  purposes  the  Word  of  God.     As  a  Westminster  divine  well 
says  : 

"  '  For  the  Scripture  stands  not  in  cortice  vcrborutn,  but  in  7/?^- 
dulla  sensus,  it's  the  same  wine  in  this  vessel  which  was  drawn 
out  of  that.' 

"  I  can  sincerely  subscribe  to  both  statements,  '  is  the  Word 
of  God,"  and  'contams  the  Word  of  God,'  but  I  challenge  the 
subscription  to  the  words  '  contains  the  Word  of  God  '  on  the 
part  of  those  who  insist  that  '  is  the  Word  of  God  '  means  verbal 
inspiration  and  inerrancy  in  every  particular.  I  challenge  the 
subscription  to  the  clause  '  contains  the  Word  of  God  '  by  the 
prosecution,  when  they  say,  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Birch  ; 

"  '  God  is  the  arranger  of  its  clauses,  the  chooser  of  its  terras, 
and  the  speller  of  its  words  so  that  the  text  in  its  betters,  words, 
or  clauses  is  just  as  divine  as  the  thought '  (Stenographer's  Re- 
port, p.  558). 

"  The  blind  zeal  with  which  some  have  recently  insisted  upon 
'  is  the  Word  of  God  '  reminds  us  of  Luther's  uncharitable  con- 
duct at  the  conference  at  Marburg.  To  use  the  words  of  Dr. 
Schaff  : 

"  '  Luther  first  rose,  and  declared  emphatically  that  he  would 
not  change  his  opinion  on  the  real  presence  in  the  least,  but 
stand  fast  on  it  to  the  end  of  life.  He  called  upon  the  Swiss  to 
prove  the  absence  of  Christ,  but  protested  at  the  outset  against 
arguments  derived  from  reason  and  geometry.  To  give  pictorial 
emphasis  to  his  declaration,  he  wrote  with  a  piece  of  chalk  on 
the  table  in  large  characters  the  words  of  institution,  with  which 
he  was  determined  to  stand  or  fall ;  Hoc  est  corpus  meum  '  ('  His- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church,'  VI.,  p.  640). 

"  We  well  know  the  evil  consequences  of  a  divided  and  dis- 
tracted Protestantism  which  resulted  from  this  intolerant  and 
opinionated  conduct  of  the  great  reformer.  Shall  we  allow  men 
who  are  pigmies  alongside  of  Luther  to  plunge  oiir  Presbyterian 
Church  into  distraction  and  division  by  the  entering  edge  of  the 
copula  *  IS  '  ?  In  the  usage  of  language,  this  little  word  '  is  '  is 
capable  of  a  variety  of  interpretations.  'This  is  my  body  '  in 
the  words  of  Jesus  is  of  infinitely  more  consequence  than  'Holy 
Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  '  in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  Give 
heed  to  the  warning  of  history."     {The  Defence,  pp.  95-96.) 


204       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL  1 

Immediately  Inspired. 

"  {d)  The  prosecution  cite  Section  8th  in  order  to  prove  the 
infallibility  of  the  original  text  of  Scripture.  The  Confession 
teaches  that — 

"  '  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek,  bemg  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular 
care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authen- 
tical .  so  as'  m  all  controversies  of  religion,  the  church  is  finally 
to  appeal  u^to  them  '  (I.  8), 

"  There  are  three  affirmations  here  :  (i)  that  the  original  text 
was  immediately  inspired  by  God ,  (2)  that  they  have  been  kept 
pure  in  all  ages  and  are  therefore  authentical ;  (3)  they  are  the 
final  appeal  in  all  controversies  of  religion.  The  third  state- 
ment gives  the  scope  of  the  others.  The  Scriptures  are  the  final 
appeal  in  religious  controversies ;  matters  of  faith  and  practice, 
not  for  questions  of  science.  Those  who  have  resorted  to  the 
Bible  to  prove  that  the  sun  moved  round  the  earth,  that  the 
earth  could  not  be  circumnavigated,  that  the  universe  was  created 
in  SIX  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  and  the  like,  have  surely  gone 
beyond  the  range  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  which  specifies 
controversies  of  religion.  Those  zealous  defenders  of  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Scriptures  in  other  like  matters  of  detail  out- 
side of  the  range  of  religious  controversies,  apart  from  matters 
of  faith  and  practice,  will  ere  long  be  convicted  of  similar  error. 

"  (i)  The  prosecution  emphasizes  the  phrase  'being  imme- 
diately inspired  by  God,"  which  indeed  they  include  in  the 
Charge  itself  in  the  clause  'immediately  inspired.*  The  Con- 
fession states  that  '  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New 
Testament  in  Greek,  being  immediately  inspired  by  God.' 

"  It  is  evident  that  the  prosecution  rest  their  case  upon  the 
adverb  '  immediately.'  What  does  it  mean  in  this  passage  ? 
'  Immediately  '  does  not  refer  to  the  time  when  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures were  composed,  and  therefore  it  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  original  autographs.  The  Confession  does  not  say, 
'  having  been  immediately  inspired  by  God,'  referring  to  their' 
origin  in  the  past,  but  'being  immediately  inspired  by  God,' 
alluding  to  their  present  condition.  The  doctrine  is  that  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  copies,  as  we  now  have  them  in  our  hands, 
are  immediately  inspired  by  God;  they  have  within  them  the 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  205 

divine  grace  of  inspiration,  and  it  is  there  immediately  from 
God  as  compared  with  the  translations  from  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  origmals,  where  the  inspiration  is  mediately  from  God, 
namely,  through  the  medium  of  these  origmals.  That  this  is  the 
meanmg  of  the  Confession  is  clear  from  the  controversial  litera- 
ture of  the  times  when  the  Confession  was  composed It 

IS  evident,  therefore,  that  the  adverb  '  immediately '  gives  the 
prosecution  no  support  for  their  doctrine  that  the  original  auto- 
graphs were  without  error.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
such  autographs."     {The  Defence,  pp.  97-99.) 

The  Autlienitcity  of  Holy  Scriplure. 

"  It  is  evident  to  any  one  who  takes  the  pains  to  compare  the 
Charge  with  Specification  6th  of  the  first  Charge  in  the  original 
Charges  and  Specifications,  that  the  prosecution  have  changed 
their  base.  The  prosecution  originally  proposed  to  prove  that 
Dr.  Briggs'  assertion,  'that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch,' was  a  fact  which  sustained  the  Charge  that  he  taught 
'doctrines  which  conflict  irreconcilably  with  and  are  contrary  to 
the  cardinal  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  contained 
in  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.'  This  charge  they  have  abandoned  and  pro- 
pose to  prove  that  the  '  teaching  that  Moses  is  not  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch'  is  'contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.'  (i)  'That  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences 
itself  to  be  'the  word  of  God  ....  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
parts,'  and  (2)  that  'the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture is  the  Scripture  itself.'  Here  are  two  charges  which  you 
have  decided  to  try  together,  but  to  vote  upon  separately. 

"  Let  me  call  attention  to  two  principles  established  at  an 
earlier  stage  in  my  argument. 

"(i)  It  is  not  sufficient  to  point  to  direct  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture,  unless  the  Church  has  already  defined  that  those  state- 
ments are  direct,  or  it  is  agreed  by  the  parties  that  they  are  di- 
rect. I  shall  show  you  later  on  that  there  are  no  such  direct 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  even  if  I  should  fail  in  such 
proof,  it  is  plain  that  the  Church  has  not  defined  these  so-called 
direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  Westminster  Stand- 


206        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

ards,  and  therefore  it  is  not  lawful  to  use  them  as  evidence  of 
an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

"  (2)  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  prosecution  to  claim  that  a  doc- 
trine IS  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards.  They 
may  claim  anything  and  everything.  It  is  necessary  for  them  to 
prove  their  claim.  The  court  have  doubtless  noticed  that  the 
prosecution  have  made  no  attempt  in  their  argument  to  present 
such  proof.  They  have  made  no  use  of  these .  passages  of  our 
Confession  whatever.  On  this  account  I  ask  that  you  rule  Charges 
IV.  and  V.  out  of  court  as  entirely  destitute  of  proof.  But  1 
shall  find  it  convenient  to  use  these  passages  of  the  Confession 
myself  and  turn  them  against  the  prosecutors.  I  admit  that  two 
doctrines  of  our  Standards  are  '  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences 
itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,'  and 
'the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture 
Itself.'  .... 

"  But  I  fail  to  see  in  what  respect  the  doctrine  that  Moses  did 
not  write  the  Pentateuch  contravenes  the  doctrine  of  the  '  con- 
sent of  all  the  parts  '  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  doctrine  that  '  the 
infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  it- 
self.' I  am  sure  that  I  hold  these  three  doctrines.  It  may  be 
that  the  prosecution  can  convince  you  that  I  am  inconsistent  in 
holding  these  doctrines.  But  they  have  not  thus  far  ventured  to 
make  such  an  argument,  and  if  they  had  done  so  they  could  not 
do  away  with  the  fact  that  I  do  hold  these  doctrines.  You  will 
then  have  to  apply  the  law  of  the  supreme  court  in  the  Craig- 
head case  that — 

"  'No  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or 
implication  ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with 
holding  those  consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow  from 
his  assertions.  Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves ;  and  while  it  is  right,  in  argument,  to  overthrow  false 
opinions,  by  tracing  them  in  their  connections  and  consequences, 
it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion  which  he  dis- 
avows.' (Craighead  Case,  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  1824, 
p.  122.) 

"  You  cannot  convict  me  in  the  face  of  this  decision  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

"  But  let  us  rise  above  these  legal  aspects  of  the  case  to  the 
merits  of  the  question.    The  Confession  teaches  that '  the  infalli- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE.  207 

ble  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.' 
Accordingly  we  must  resort  to  Holy  Scripture  for  the  infallible 
interpretation  of  the  question  whether  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch or  not.  To  that  we  agree,  and  to  that  rule  we  shall  resort 
so  soon  as  preliminary  questions  can  be  settled. 

"Granting  that  there  is  'consent  of  all  the  parts'  of  Holy 
Scripture,  it  is  our  duty  to  determine  what  that  consent  is.  This 
we  shall  use  every  effort  to  determine.  But  it  is  evident  to  the 
court  at  the  outset  that  there  is  an  irreconcilable  difference  of 
opinion  between  the  parties  who  propose  to  resort  to  the  same 
tribunal  and  to  seek  the  same  guidance.  They  try  to  prove  to 
you  that  Holy  Scripture  tells  us  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch. I,  on  the  other  hand,  will  present  to  you  indubitable  evi- 
dence that  '  the  consent  of  all  the  parts  '  of  Holy  Scripture,  and 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  given  by  Scripture  itself, 
force  the  conclusion  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch. 
The  argument  is  therefore  reduced  to  the  Scriptural  argument. 
But  we  are  confronted  at  the  outset  by  the  principle  already  es- 
tablished, that  the  Church  has  not  officially  determined  the  in- 
terpretation of  these  passages  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  that  you 
cannot  by  a  majority  vote  in  the  Presbytery  decide  which  is  the 
correct  interpretation.  The  constitution  of  the  Church  forces 
you  to  decide  by  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  given  in  the 
Confession  and  to  limit  your  decisions  within  the  strict  lines  of 
its  decisions.  To  depart  from  them  and  judge  me  by  the  inter- 
pretation of  these  passages  of  Scripture  by  a  majority  vote  of  the 
Presbytery^  will  violate  the  constitution  of  the  Church  and  all 
the  precedents  of  ecclesiastical  process."  (  The  Defence,  pp.  115- 
120.) 

"Let  me  sum  up  my  arguments  on  the  Charges  IV.  and  V. 

"(i)  There  is  no  lawful  bridge  by  which  these  specifications, 
'that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  Isaiah 
IS  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,'  can 
be  brought  under  the  Charges.  Therefore  there  is  no  rele- 
vancy in  the  specifications—  they  cannot  be  accounted  as  valid. 

"  (2)  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  nowhere  states 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  whole 
of  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  Therefore  there  can  be  no 
lawful  case  against  me  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

"  (3)    The  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  passages  ad- 


208        AKGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

duced  does  not  show  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  and  that 
Isaiah  wrote  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  Therefore  my  state- 
ments are  not  in  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture  and  there  is  no 
valid  case  against  me  on  the  ground  of  Holy  Scripture. 

"  (4)  Holy  Scripture  makes  it  evident  that  Moses  did  not  write 
the  Pentateuch  and  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book 
ihat  bears  his  name.  Therefore  mv  statements  are  true  and  the 
prosecution  are  in  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture."  {The  Defence, 
pp.  1 50-1 5 1.) 

Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death. 

"This  Charge  states  (i)  that  it  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  '  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness.'  But  no 
proof  is  offered  for  this  essential  doctrine  under  the  Charge. 
We  shall  consider  whether  there  is  any  proof  for  it  whatever  in 
Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards.  (2)  The  Charge  states  that 
Dr.'Briggs  teaches  '  that  Sanctification  is  not  complete  at  death.' 
This  I  may  accept  as  a  fairly  good  statement  of  my  doctrine. 
(3)  The  Charge  states  that  my  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  essen- 
tial doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards.  This  state- 
ment we  shall  have  to  consider.  But  let  me  warn  the  court  again 
that  they  must  confine  themselves  to  the  question  at  issue.  They 
have  no  right  to  condemn  me  on  account  of  any  other  doctrines 
taught  in  the  citations  from  my  Inaugural,  except  the  doctrine 
attributed  to  me  in  the  Charge,  namely,  'that  Sanctification  is 
not  complete  at  death.'  My  doctrine  is  clearly  stated  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  the  Inaugural  cited  by  the  prosecution  as  part 
of  their  specification  : 

"  '  There  is  no  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of 
Christendom,  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at 
death.  The  only  sanctification  known  to  experience,  to  Christian 
orthodoxy,  and  to  the  Bible,  is  progressive  sanctification.  Pro- 
gressive sanctification  after  death  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Church.' 

"  It  IS  claimed  by  the  adversaries  that  this  statement  is  against 
the  Westminster  Standards,  which  teach  '  that  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness.'  They 
cite  from  the  Confession,  chapter  xxxii.  (i),  from  the  Larger 
Catechism,  Ques.  86,  and  from  the  Shorter  Catechism,  Ques.  37. 


THE   LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  209 

But  Dr.  Birch  in  his  argument  made  no  use  whatever  of  these 
passages  from  our  Standards ;  and  Mr.  McCook  used  only  one  of 
them.  Question  37  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  in  order  to  state 
that  it  teaches  a  doctrine  directly  contrary  to  my  doctrine.  But 
that  was  a  mere  assertion  without  proof,  and  no  proposal  was 
made  to  show  that  that  doctrine  is  an  essential  doctrine  of  the 
Standards.     Therefore  I  ask  that  you  decide  in  accordance  with 

'A 

law  and  usage  in  courts  of  justice  and  throw  out  the  Charge 
which  is  so  destitute  of  proof.  But  inasmuch  as  I  desire  that 
you  should  know  what  is  the  precise  relation  of  my  doctrine  to 
the  Westminster  Standards,  I  shall  consider  these  passages.  (i)< 
It  is  true  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  that  '  the 
souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness ' 
(37) ;  but  it  is  not  said  that  at  their  death  believers  are  immedi- 
ately, in  a  moment  of  time,  '  at  once'  by  divine  transformation, 
made  perfect  in  holiness.  I  can  say  at  their  death  made  '  perfect 
in  holiness  '  because  I  believe  that  the  souls  of  believers  at  death 
enter  the  Middle  State,  in  which  state  they  are  made  perfect  in 
holiness  by  progressive  sanctification.  '  At  their  death  '  does  not 
necessarily  imply  '  in  the  very  moment  of  the  transition  from 
life  to  death,'  or  in  the  exact  second  of  time  after  the  spirit  has 
departed  from  the  body ;  but  '  at  their  death '  is  in  antithesis 
with  '  in  this  life,'  and  means  nothing  more  than  '  in  the  state  of 
death.'  '  Made  perfect  in  holiness  '  does  not  necessarily  imply 
'  that  the  sanctification  of  the  soul  is  instantaneously,  in  the 
moment  of  time  after  it  leaves  the  body,  perfected  and  com- 
pleted ';  but  it  is  consistent  with  the  belief  that  the  soul  is  made 
perfect  in  holiness  in  the  state  of  death.  The  Larger  Catechism 
teaches  as  follows : 

" 'The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the  members 
of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after  death,  is  in  that 
their  souls  are  then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into 
the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face,  of  God  in  light 
and  glory  ;  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies  '   (86). 

"  It  is  not  said  that  their  souls  are  made  immediately  perfect 
in  holiness  after  death  any  more  than  it  is  said  immediately  re- 
ceived into  the  highest  heavens.  This  question  speaks  of  the 
communion  in  glory  with  Christ  which  the  members  of  the  in- 
visible church  enjoy  immediately  after  death.  Is  that  com- 
munion limited  to  the  moment  of  time  at  death?     Does  it  not 


210        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

rather  continue  during  the  whole  time  in  that  state,  beginning 
immediately  after  death  ?  Immediately  after  death  in  this  pas- 
sage means  the  whole  state  which  begins  immediately  after 
death,  during  which  the  communion  is  enjoyed,  as  we  might  in- 
fer also  from  the  clause  '  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their 
bodies.'  What  therefore  is  affirmed  as  happening  immediately 
after  death  is  affirmed  as  happening  during  that  state-  of  com- 
munion and  waiting  which  begins  immediately  after  death  ;  and 
not  in  the  moment  of  time  that  begins  that  state.  The  four 
affirmations  are  not  of  successive  chronological  events,  but  of 
parallel  events  :  (i)  'made  perfect  in  holiness,'  (2)  'received  into 
the  highest  heavens,'  (3)  '  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and 
glory,'  (4)  'waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies  ';  all 
alike  refer  to  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  con- 
tinues through  this  entire  state  from  death  to  the  resurrection. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  the  context  of  this  passage,  or  in 
the  proof  texts  of  the  Confession  cited  to  sustain  it,  to  indicate 
that  'made  perfect  in  holiness'  applies  only  to  the  moment 
of  time  when  the  Middle  State  begins,  or  that  it  confines  the 
communion  with  Christ  in  the  long  period  of  the  state  which 
follows  the  moment  immediately  after  death,  to  the  single  thing 
'  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies.' 

"  This  interpretation  of  the  phrase  '  immediately  after  death  ' 
is  made  probable  when  we  put  Question  86  in  its  context  in  the 
midst  of  the  group  of  Questions  82-90.     Que.stion  82  asks  : 

"  '  What  is  the  communion  in  glory,  which  the  members  of  the 
invisible  church  have  with  Christ  ?  '  The  answer  is  :  '  The  com- 
munion in  glory,  which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church 
have  with  Christ,  is  in  this  life,  immediately  after  death,  and  at 
last  perfected  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment.' 

"  Here  then,  you  observe,  are  three  states  in  which  this  com- 
munion with  Christ  is  enjoyed  :  (i)  this  life;  (2)  immediately 
after  death  ;  (3)  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment.  The 
communion  with  Christ  is  evidently  not  limited  to  the  point  of 
time  immediately  after  death,  but  to  the  state  beginning  imme- 
diately after  death  and  extending  up  to  the  day  of  judgment ; 
for  '  in  this  life  '  clearly  refers  not  to  any  single  moment  in  this 
life,  but  to  the  whole  Christian  state  in  this  life  from  the  moment 
in  which  Christian  life  begins  in  regeneration  until  the  soul  de- 
parts from  the  body  at  death.    So  '  at  the  resurrection  and  day 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  211 

of  judgment'  is  not  limited  to  a  moment  of  time  when  the 
resurrection  and  the  judgment  may  take  place  ;  but  refers  to  the 
final  state  of  communion  with  Christ  beginning  with  resurrec' 
tion  and  judgment  but  extending  through  all  eternity.  Accord- 
ingly, '  immediately  after  death,'  which  intervenes  between  this 
life  and  'at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment,'  is  not  limited 
to  the  moment  of  the  soul's  departure  into  the  Middle  State, 
but  comprehends  the  communion  with  Christ  which  is  the  ex- 
perience of  believers  from  the  moment  of  death  till  the  day  of 
resurrection.  The  scope  of  the  question  makes  this  certain. 
Observe  the  question  is  :  '  What  is  the  communion  in  glory, 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  have  with  Christ?" 
It  is  extremely  improbable  that  the  Westminster  divines  would 
limit  that  communion  in  the  future  state  to  two  points  of  time 
— first,  the  moment  of  death,  and  second,  the  moment  of  resur- 
rection, and  leave  entirely  out  of  view  the  millenniums  of  the 
Middle  State  and  the  eternities  of  the  Ultimate  State. 

"  In  accordance  with  this  general  statement  of  Question  82, 
which  we  have  thus  analyzed,  there  follow  separate  questions  as 
to  each  one  of  these  states  : 

'  (83).  '  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  in  this  life  ?  ' 

"(86).  'What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after 
death  ? ' 

"  (90).  '  What  shall  be  done  to  the  righteous  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment .'' ' 

"The  'immediately  after  death  '  of  the  specific  question  has 
the  same  meaning  as  the  '  immediately  after  death  '  of  the  gen- 
eral question  ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  '  immediately  after  death  ' 
of  the  answer  must  be  the  same,  all  therefore  referring  to  the 
state  immediately  after  death,  and  not  to  the  point  of  time  at 
death.  Therefore  there  is  no  proof  that  the  clause  '  then  made 
perfect  in  holiness  '  is  to  be  limited  to  the  very  moment  of 
death. 

"  Furthermore,  there  are  several  expressions  in  these  questions 
and  answers  which  do  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  immediate 
and  perfect  sanctification  in  the  moment  of  death.  The  state- 
ment '  at  last  perfected  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment ' 
indicates  that   the  glory  of  the  Middle  State  is  intermediate 


212       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

glory  and  not  perfected  glory.  The  statement  '  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies  '  shows  that  the  redemption  was 
not  yet  full  nor  yet  perfected  at  death,  that  it  could  not  be  full, 
could  not  be  perfected  till  the  day  of  judgment.  And  Question 
90  tells  us  that  the  righteous  will  be  openly  acknowledged  and 
acquitted  at  'the  day  of  judgment,'  not  before  ;  that  they  'shall 
be  received  into  heaven,  where  they  shall  be  fully  and  forever 
freed  from  all  sin  and  misery;  filled  with  inconceivable  joys; 
made  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in  body  and  soul,  in  the 
company  of  innumerable  saints  and  angels,  but  especially  in  the 
immediate  vision  and  fruition  of  God  the  Father,  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  all  eternity.  And  this  is 
the  perfect  and  full  communion,  which  the  members  of  the  invis- 
ible church  shall  enjoy  with  Christ  in  glory,  at  the  resurrection 
and  day  of  judgment.' 

"  Such  expressions  as  these  with  reference  to  the  day  of  judg- 
ment indicate  that  *  the  perfect  and  full  communion  with  Christ 
in  glory '  is  not  enjoyed  until  that  time  ;  that  then,  first,  believ- 
ers will  '  be  openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted  ';  that  not  till 
then  shall  they  '  be  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  ';  that  not 
till  then  shall  they  '  be  made  perfectly  holy.' 

"  It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  these  statements  of  our  Stand- 
ards, that  perfect  holiness,  perfect  redemption,  perfect  com- 
munion with  Christ  in  glory,  cannot  be  enjoyed  until  the  decisions 
of  the  day  of  judgment.  How  can  anyone  be  perfectly  sanctified 
who  has  not  attained  '  perfect  and  full  communion  with  Christ 
in  glory,' who  has  not  yet  been  'openly  acknowledged  and  ac- 
quitted,' and  who  still  has  to  look  forward  to  the  resurrection 
when  for  the  first  he  will  be  '  fully  and  forever  freed  from 
all  sin  '  and  made  '  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in  body  and 
soul '  ?  Those  who  teach  immediate  sanctification  at  death  are 
in  irresistible  conflict  with  these  statements  of  the  Confession  ; 
whereas  those  who  teach  progressive  sanctification  after  death 
and  regard  the  state  immediately  after  death  as  a  state  during 
which  men  are  made  perfect  in  holiness,  which  progress  in  per- 
fection reaches  its  end  at  the  day  of  judgment,  reconcile  all 
these  statements  of  the  Larger  Catechism  into  a  higher  unity, 
where  there  is  complete  and  perfect  harmony. 

"  I  am  well  aware  that  these  statements  are  obscure  and  ca- 
pable of  such  interpretation  as  to  involve  them  in  many  inconsist- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  213 

encies.  I  do  not  claim  that  the  Westminster  divines  were 
altogether  clear  themselves  as  to  these  difficult  questions  of 
eschatology.  1  am  also  aware  that  many  citations  can  be  made 
from  their  writings  which  teach  immediate  sanctification  at 
death.  I  have  doubtless  seen  the  most,  if  not  all  such  extracts 
as  can  be  adduced.  But  whatever  the  opinions  of  any  or  all  of 
them  were  on  this  subject,  when  they  constructed  the  careful 
statements  of  our  Standards,  they  were  obliged  to  keep  close  to 
the  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  thus  it  is  that  their 
statements,  though  indefinite  and  obscure,  in  no  wise  come  in 
conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after 
death,  and  in  no  wise  teach  the  error  of  immediate  sanctification 
at  death.  The  Westminster  divines  shared  the  common  fault  of 
the  Protestantism  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  in 
that  having  thrown  aside  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  Purga- 
tory, and  having  neglected  to  revive  the  ancient  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  the  Middle  State,  they  left  the  Middle  State  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  in  their  definitions,  but  did  not  care- 
fully distinguish  it  from  the  Ultimate  State.  Accordingly  in 
their  creeds,  neglecting  to  make  important  distinctions  and  yet 
adhering  closely  to  Scripture,  they  did  not  fall  into  statements 
of  error  ;  but  in  their  writings  failing  to  observe  the  distinction 
made  in  Holy  Scripture  between  the  Abaddon  of  the  Middle 
State  and  the  Gehenna  of  the  Ultimate  State,  and  between  the 
heaven  of  the  Middle  State  and  the  heaven  of  the  Final  State, 
they  said  many  things  of  the  one  that  belong  properly  to  the 
other.  When,  therefore,  in  accord  with  many  modern  Protestant 
theologians,  I  advance  into  this  unexplored  territory  of  the  Mid- 
dle State  and  go  beyond  the  Westminster  Confession  in  my 
statements  and  definitions,  follow  in  the  lines  drawn  by  the 
ancient  Church  and  gather  together  all  the  teachings  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  so  more  carefully  distinguish  between  the  Middle 
State  and  the  Ultimate  State,  1  do  not  violate  the  statements  of 
the  Confession ;  I  go  into  regions  of  liberty  and  extra-confes- 
sional  dogma,  and  in  those  regions  pursue  the  scientific,  histori- 
cal, and  Biblical  methods  of  investigation  and  statement. 

"  (2).  If  any  one  insists  upon  rejecting  the  proof  that  has  been 
given  with  regard  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
'  made  perfect  in  holiness,"  his  attention  is  invited  to  the  West- 
minster doctrine  of  sanctification,  and  he  is  asked,  if  there  be 


214        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE   APPEAL 

an  inconsistency  between  the  two  chapters,  which  is  the  more 
important  chapter  of  the  Confession,  the  one  giving  the  general 
doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  or  the  one  givmg  the 
specific  doctrme  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  under  the 
head  of  the  doctrme  of  the  Middle  State  ?  The  chapter  on 
sanctification  knows  no  other  sanctification  than  progressive 
sanctification.     Listen  to  this  doctrine  : 

"'I.  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  hav- 
ing a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further 
sanctified,  really  and  personally,  through  the  virtue  of  Christ's 
death  and  resurrection,  by  his  word  and  Spirit  dwelling  in  them  . 
the  dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  and  the  sev- 
eral lusts  thereof  are  more  and  more  weakened  and  mortified  ; 
and  they  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened,  in  all  sav- 
ing graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness^  without  which  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord. 

•' '  IL  This  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man,  yet 
imperfect  in  this  life  :  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of  corrup- 
tion in  every  part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and  irreconcilable 
war,  the  flesh  lusting  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the 
flesh. 

"  '  in.  In  which  war,  although  the  remaining  corruption  for  a 
time  may  much  prevail,  yet,  through  the  continual  supply  of 
strength  from  the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  regenerate  part 
doth  overcome :  and  so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting 
holiness  in  the  fear  of  God.'     (Chap  XIII.) 

"  This  chapter  is  one  of  the  choicest  productions  of  the  West- 
minster divines.  It  sets  forth  truly  and  accurately  the  doctrine 
of  Holy  Scripture.  If  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  bound  this 
13th  chapter  on  their  heart  instead  of  the  3d  chapter,  and 
had  made  the  Scriptural  doctrine  ot  sanctification  their  article 
of  the  standing  and  falling  Church,  rather  than  the  scholastic 
dogma  of  reprobation,  what  a  glorious  history  they  might  have 
had  in  the  last  two  centuries  !  There  would  have  been  no  need 
of  the  agonies  of  the  present  revision  movement.  It  seems 
sometimes  as  if  those  who  insist  upon  immediate  sanctification 
at  death  were  using  the  term  sanctification  in  a  different  sense 
from  the  Westminster  Standards.  Sanctification  is  sometimes 
used  in  the  Scriptures  and  also  in  theological  literature  and 
debate,  for  that  cleansing  from  sin  which  takes  place  in  the  laver 


THE  LOGIC   OF  THE  CASE.  215 

of  regeneration;  and  again  for  that  induction  into  a  higher 
Christian  life  which  is  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  souls  of  men  at  certain  crises  of  their  history. 
I  do  not  question  that  men  are  sanctified  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  washed  in  the  laver  of  regeneration  clean  from  every  cor- 
ruption, taint,  and  defilement  of  sin.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the 
fountain  which  flows  from  the  Redeemer's  side  cleanseth  from 
all  sin  in  the  hour  of  death  as  in  any  hour  of  life,  when  the 
sinner  opens  his  heart  in  faith  and  repentance  to  the  saving 
love  of  Jesus.  So  again  I  do  not  question  the  higher  life  that 
men  may  attain  in  this  world,  when  throwing  aside  every 
weight  of  besetting  sin,  tearing  away  all  the  bands  of  evil  habits 
and  associations,  dissolving  every  other  tie  which  might  restrain 
them  from  God  and  duty,  they  consecrate  themselves  to  the 
service  of  the  Redeemer  and  with  fresh  courage  strain  every 
nerve  of  holy  resolution,  striving  for  the  love  of  Christ  in  the 
passion  of  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  Master's  service. 
The  divine  Spirit  lifts  up  such  consecrated  ones  to  a  higher 
plane  of  religious  experience  and  fills  their  souls  with  joy  and 
holy  endeavor.  I  firmly  believe  that  such  transformations,  long 
prepared  by  the  Spirit's  secret  workings  upon  the  soul,  may 
take  place  immediately  in  a  moment  of  time,  in  a  happy  hour 
which  seems  like  a  second  birth,  a  second  resurrection.  It  is 
the  shooting  of  the  plant  of  grace  above  the  ground  after  the 
long  season  of  sowing  and  germination  in  the  secret  recesses  of 
the  heart.  It  is  the  springing  forth  of  the  blossom  in  the  spring- 
time after  a  long  winter's  secret  preparation.  That  there  will 
be  such  a  transformation  at  death,  the  spring-time  of  a  new 
life,  I  do  not  doubt  I  firmly  believe  that  then  there  will  be  a 
transformation  greater  than  any  that  is  possible  in  this  life.  You 
may  call  this  sanctification  if  you  will,  you  may  say  that  this  is 
'being  made  perfect  in  holiness,'  if  that  is  your  meaning,  but 
if  you  do  you  have  a  very  meagre  and  inadequate  conception  of 
the  sanctification  taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  West- 
minster Confession.  Christian  sanctification  is  vastly  higher, 
grander,  and  more  glorious  than  this.  According  to  the  West- 
minster Confession,  it  is  not  merely  cleansing  from  sin  and  ris- 
ing to  a  higher  grade  of  Christian  life  and  experience,  '  it  is 
being  more  and  more  strengthened  in  all  saving  graces,  to  the 
practice  of  true  holiness.'     How  can  there  be  the  practice  of 


216       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

true  holiness  except  in  time  of  duration  ?  How  can  there  be  the 
practice  of  true  holiness  without  holy  conduct  ?  How  can  there 
be  holy  conduct  without  Christian  activity?  How  can  there  be 
Christian  activity  without  doing  and  working  and  serving  Christ 
and  the  brethren  ?  The  practice  of  true  holiness,  therefore, 
must,  from  the  very  necessities  of  the  case,  follow  the  transfor- 
mation that  takes  place  at  death — it  cannot  be  a  part' of  it.  It 
IS  conceivable  that  believers  at  their  death  rhay  be  immediately 
so  strengthened  in  all  saving  graces  as  to  be  perfectly  endowed 
for  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
practice  itself  could  be  immediately  imparted.  The  practice  of 
true  holiness  cannot  be  given  by  God ;  it  must  be  the  exercise 
and  work  of  man,  under  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and 
must  follow  any  influence  of  sanctification  at  death.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  practice  is  an  essential  part  of  the  sanctifi- 
cation  and  there  can  be  no  completeness  of  sanctification,  no 
perfection  in  holiness  without  the  practice  of  true  holiness, 
the  completion  of  sanctification  at  the  moment  of  death  is 
impossible. 

"  The  Westminster  Confession  also  teaches  that  '  this  sanctifi- 
cation is  throughout  in  the  whole  man.'  The  text  cited  in 
proof  of  the  position  is  . 

"  '  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly ,  and  I  pray 
God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless 
unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ '  (1.  Thess.  v.  23).  It 
is  manifest  that  according  to  this  text  and  this  statement  of  the 
Confession,  sanctification  embraces  the  body  as  well  as  the  soul. 
Sanctification  cannot  be  completed  without  the  body.  It  is 
clearly  taught  in  the  Confession,  XXXII.,  that  believers  are 
waiting  in  the  Middle  State  'until  the  day  of  judgment  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies."  So  the  Larger  Catechism 
states  that  then  at  the  day  of  judgment  '  they  shall  be  fully  and 
forever  freed  from  all  sin  and  misery,  filled  with  inconceivable 
joys,  made  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in  body  and  soul.' 
Wherefore  according  to  the  Westminster  Standards,  the  full 
redemption  of  their  bodies,  the  sanctification  of  their  bodies, 
'  made  perfectly  holy  in  body  and  soul,'  does  not  take  place 
until  the  day  of  judgment.  Therefore  sanctification  is  not 
throughout  in  the  whole  man  until  the  day  of  judgment.  Man 
cannot,  therefore,  be  immediately  and  completely  sanctified  at 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  217 

death.  That  measure  of  sanctification  which  he  receives  at 
death  is  intermediate  between  the  sanctification  in  this  life  and 
the  complete  sanctification  at  the  day  of  judgment.  It  is 
furthermore  evident  that  the  apostle,  in  the  text  cited,  is  pray- 
ing, not  that  God  would  sanctify  the  Thessalonians  wholly  at 
death,,  or  present  them  blameless  at  the  hour  of  death,  but 
-  unto  the  commg  of  our  Lord  Jesus,"  that  is,  the  second  advent ; 
and  what  is  that  but  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and 
the  final  judgment  ? 

"  If  therefore,  by  any  confusion  of  mind,  the  Westminster 
divines  have  taught  in  Chapter  XXXII.,  and  the  correspond- 
ing questions  and  answers  of  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms, 
the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death,  they  have 
thereby  through  inadvertence  taught  a  doctrine  which  is 
irreconcilable  with  and  contrary  to  and  in  conflict  with  their 
doctrine  of  sanctification  and  their  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  and  their  doctrine  of  the  day  of  judgment.  Can  any 
doubt,  in  such  a  case,  which  passage  must  give  way  ?  Shall  we 
give  up  three  doctrines  of  greatest  importance  for  the  sake  of 
one  doctrine  of  lesser  importance .'' 

"  (3).  I  freely  grant  that  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the 
phrases  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  'at  their  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness,'  or  'immediately  after  death,'  is  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death,  though  I 
think  that  the  contexts  of  the  Larger  Catechism  and  the  Con- 
fession disprove  that  interpretation.  But  granting  that  my  in- 
terpretation is  wrong,  the  question  arises  whether  the  doctrine 
of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Westminster  Confession.  Can  you  regard  the  doctrine  as 
essential  to  the  Westminster  system  of  doctrine.?  It  is  a  doc- 
trine in  the  difficult  field  of  eschatology,  where  there  must  be 
liberty  for  investigation,  statement,  and  debate,  until  the  Church 
has  matured  its  Christian  experience  and  defined  more  closely 

its  faith. 

"  Is  the  Presbytery  ready  to  take  the  position  that  the  dogma 
of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  so  that  no  man  can  become  a  Presby- 
terian minister  who  does  not  hold  it  ?  If  so,  you  stretch  and 
strain  the  line  of  cardinal  and  essential  doctrines  to  an  extent 
that    will   be    destructive  of  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 


218        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

Church.  I  doubt  whether  the  superior  courts  will  sustain  you 
in  such  a  position,  and  if  they  should  do  this  wrong  to  the 
Church  of  God,  the  Christian  world  will  regard  them  as  break- 
ing the  bonds  of  catholicity."     {The  Defence,  pp.  151-161.) 

"The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  the 
Church  in  the  Middle  State  in  these  words : 

"  '  But  ye  are  come  unto  mount  Zion,  and  unto  the  city  of  the 
living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  innumerable  hosts  of 
angels  in  general  assembly  and  to  the  church  of  the  first-born 
who  are  enrolled  in  heaven  ;  and  to  God  of  all  the  Judge,  and 
to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect;  and  to  Jesus  the  medi- 
ator of  a  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  spnnkling  that 
speaketh  better  than  that  of  Abel.'     (Heb.  xii.  22-24.) 

••  This  passage  is  cited  by  the  Westminster  divines  in  proof  of 
their  phrase  '  made  perfect  in  holiness.'  And  it  is  their  only 
proof  text.  Let  me  call  your  attention  again  to  the  principle 
laid  down  in  my  preliminary  objection,  that  even  if  the  West- 
minster divines  meant  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanc- 
tiflcation  at  death,  yet  if  the  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  on  which 
they  rely  for  proof  teach  a  different  doctrine,  we  are  obliged  by 
our  subscription  vows  and  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
Standards  to  follow  Holy  Scripture  rather  than  the  Confession, 
and  you  must  judge  by  Scripture  rather  than  by  the  Confession. 
This  is  said  as  a  guide  to  those  who  may  not  be  convinced  by 
the  argument  I  have  given  you  as  to  the  doctrine  taught  in  our 
Confession.  I  shall  now  endeavor  to  show  you  that  this  passage 
of  Holy  Scripture  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  immediate 
sanctification  at  death,  {a)  Observe  that  we  have  in  this  passage 
a  scene  of  great  magnificence  and  glory,  an  assembly  in  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem  on  the  heavenly  heights  of  Zion,  of  the  God 
of  all,  Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  the  general 
assembly  of  innumerable  hosts  of  angels,  and  the  church  of  the 
first-born,  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect.  This  festal 
assembly  in  the  new  Jerusalem  is  in  antithesis  to  Sinai  blazing 
and  quaking  with  terrors.  What  is  there  in  text  or  in  context 
to  suggest  that  this  is  a  scene  which  immediately  follows  the 
death  of  every  individual,  or  that  immediately  after  death  every 
believer  is  ushered  into  this  festal  assembly  ?  What  is  there  in 
text  or  context  to  imply  that  these  first-born  from  among  men, 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  219 

these  just  men,  these  spirits  perfected,  embrace  all  believers 
that  have  departed  this  life  ?  What  is  there  in  text  or  in  context 
to  imply  that  these  perfected  spirits  attain  their  perfection  at 
the  precise  moment  of  their  death  ?  The  prosecution  will  have 
to  prove  these  three  questionable  propositions  ere  they  can  use 
this  passage  as  an  evidence  that  all  believers  are  immediately 
sanctified  in  the  moment  of  their  departure  from  this  life.  They 
cannot  give  you  any  such  proof,  {b)  Listen  to  the  opinions  of 
distinguished  commentators  on  this  passage.  Calvin  is  one  of 
the  commentators  who  interpret  '  spirits  of  just  men  made  per- 
fect,' of  the  fulfilment  or  completion  of  their  earthly  life.  If 
John  Calvin,  the  father  of  Calvinists,  the  prince  of  interpreters 
among  the  Reformers,  be  correct  in  his  interpretation,  this  pas- 
sage has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question  whether 
sanctification  is  immediate  or  progressive  after  death.  Calvin, 
however,  gives  his  opinion  on  sanctification  after  death  in  his 
comment  upon  another  passage,  where  he  says  : 

"  '  As,  however,  the  spirit  is  accustomed  to  speak  in  this  man- 
ner in  reference  to  the  last  coming  of  Christ,  it  were  better  to 
extend  the  advancement  of  the  grace  of  Christ  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh.  For  although  those  who, have  been  freed  from 
the  mortal  body  do  no  longer  contend  with  the  lusts  of  the  flesh, 
and  are,  as  the  expression  is,  beyond  the  reach  of  a  single  dart, 
yet  there  will  be  no  absurdity  in  speaking  of  them  as  in  the  way 
of  advancement,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  yet  reached  the 
point  at  which  they  aspire,  they  do  not  yet  enjoy  the  felicity  and 
glory  which  they  have  hoped  for,  and,  in  fine,  the  day  has  not 
yet  shone  which  is  to  discover  the  treasures  which  lie  hid  in 
hope.  And  in  truth,  when  hope  is  treated  of,  our  eyes  must 
always  be  directed  forward  to  a  blessed  resurrection  as  the  grand 
object  in  view.'     (Calvin  on  Phil.,  I.,  6.) 

"  (<:)  De  Wette  represents  many  commentators  who  think  that 
these  perfected  spirits  are  the  martyrs  of  the  old  dispensation, 
the  theme  of  Heb.  xi.,  of  whom  it  is  said  : 

"  '  And  these  all,  having  had  witness  borne  to  them  through 
their  faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided  some 
better  thing  concerning  us,  that  apart  from  us  they  should  not 
be  made  perfect'  (verses  39,  40). 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  our  passage  is  based  upon  that 
passage,  not  only  because  of  the  term  '  perfected,'  but  also  be- 


220       ARGUMENT  AGAIXST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

cause  of  the  '  better  thing '  which  appears  in  both  passages. 
The  '  better  thing '  of  xi.  40,  is  referred  to  as  that  in  which 
Hebrew  and  Greek  martyrs  share  alike  and  at  the  same  time; 
but  what  it  is,  is  not  distinctly  stated.  In  our  passage,  however, 
it  is  the  new  covenant  of  Jesus,  the  Mediator,  and  His  blood  of 
sprinkling.  Therefore  we  must  extend  the  reference  of  the 
perfected  spirits  to  the  New  Testament  martyrs  as  well  as  to  the 
Old  Testament  martyrs.  The  blood  of  sprinkling  gives  us  the 
clew  to  the  meaning  of  perfected  here.  As  Weiss  says,  the  en- 
tire usage  of  the  Epistle  refers  this  perfection  to  that  attained 
through  Christ  and  His  sacrifice.  We  are  not  to  think  of  moral 
perfection.  Let  us  recall  this  usage  for  a  few  moments.  There 
are  four  passages  which  teach  that  perfection  was  not  through 
the  Levitical  priesthood  or  the  sacrifices  prescribed  in  the  law 
(vii.  II,  19;  ix.  9;  X.  i).  It  is  then  said  in  antithesis  but  'by 
one  offering  he  [Christ]  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are 
sanctified '  (x.  14).  The  '  sanctified  '  here  are,  as  the  present 
participle  shows,  to  use  the  words  of  Bishop  Westcott,  '  all  who 
from  time  to  time  realize  progressively  in  fact  that  which  has 
been  potentially  obtained  for  them.'  The  perfected  spirits  here 
are  therefore  those  who  have  been  perfected  by  the  mediatorial 
intercession  and  cleansing  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  not  those 
who  have  attained  moral  perfection,  or  who  have  completed  once 
for  all  their  sanctification.  It  is  possible  that  the  prosecution 
understand  by  '  perfect  in  holiness  '  just  this  cleansing  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  and  this  equipment  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  If 
this  be  their  meaning  I  shall  not  dispute  their  doctrine,  so  far  as 
it  goes.  But  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  which  is  in  Holy 
Scripture  and  in  the  Westminster  Confession  is  vastly  higher 
than  this.  It  is  not  merely  cleansing  from  sin  ;  it  is  the  infusion 
of  habits  of  holiness.  It  is  not  merely  clothing  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ ;  it  is  the  habitual  practice  of  holy  conduct  and 
the  attainment  of  an  indelible  holy  character. 

"  This  festal  assembly  of  angels  and  perfected  spirits  reminds 
us  of  several  similar  gatherings  in  the  Apocalypse  with  which 
»this  passage  seems  to  be  in  parallelism:  vi.  9-1 1;  xiv.  1-5; 
XX.  4-6. 

"  In  all  these  passages  the  martyrs  of  the  martyr  age  of  the 
Church  are  conceived  as  the  first  fruits,  or  the  first-born,  or  par- 
takers of  the  first  resurrection.     They  have  been  faithful  and 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  221 

true  in  their  testimony  even  unto  death,  they  have  kept  them- 
selves undefiled  and  without  blemish  from  contact  with  idolatry, 
they  are  virgins  as  the  bride  of  the  Messiah  and  have  not  com- 
mitted fornication  with  heathen  gods,  they  are  clad  in  the  white 
robes  of  the  priests  of  God,  they  live  and  reign  with  Christ  in 
the  heavenly  Zion  throughout  the  complete  period  of  His  medi- 
atorial reign,  they  share  the  Redeemer's  blessedness  and  glory. 
But  for  all  this  it  is  not  said  that  they  cease  to  progress  in 
sanctification,  or  that  they  have  attained  moral  perfection,  or 
that  they  have  gained  that  Christlikeness  and  Godlikeness  which 
is  the  final  goal  of  redemption  and  which  alone  can  come  ac- 
cording to  the  apostle  John,  when  the  Messiah  is  manifested  in 
glory  at  His  second  advent  when  the  saints  are  manifested  with 
Him.  Then  for  the  first  time  the  rays  of  the  sun  of  righteous- 
ness will  shine  through  every  saint  and  not  a  mote  will  be  found 

in  those  sunbeams 

"  The  invariable  statement  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  the 
second  advent  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  goal  of  sanctification.  In 
addition  to  the  passages  already  considered,  I  would  refer  to 
Rom,  viii.  29,  30;  I.  Cor.  i.  8;  Eph.  iv.  13-16;  Phil.  i.  6;  I. 
Thess.  iii.  13;  v.  23;  H.  Peter  iii.  13,  14.  There  is  not  a  pas- 
sage in  the  Bible  that  teaches  either  directly  or  indirectly  im- 
mediate sanctification  at  death,  or  that  the  completion  once  and 
for  all  of  the  holy  advancement  of  mankind  is  accomplished  in 
a  moment  of  time  by  a  magical  transformation  in  the  dying 
hour.  The  Christian  Church  has  always  taught  the  doctrine  of 
the  Middle  State  between  death  and  the  resurrection;  and  of 
progress  in  the  holy  life  after  death,  in  that  state.  There  have 
been  those  who  taught  the  sleep  of  pious  souls.  Dr.  Birch 
seems  to  hold  that  opinion,  for  he  said  in  his  argument :  'All 
dead  Christians  are  asleep.  When  we  are  asleep  we  show  the 
rest  which  consists  in  the  inaction  of  mind  and  body'  (Stenog- 
rapher's Report,  p.  631).  Others  have  held  that  departed  spirits 
pass  a  dreamlike  existence,  with  powers  of  memory  of  the  life  in 
this  world,  and  of  anticipation  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
and  the  judgment-seat  of  God ;  but  without  real  activity  or 
change  of  condition  throughout  the  entire  period.  But  these 
opinions  have  always  been  rejected  by  the  orthodox."  {The  De~ 
fence,  pp.  170-174.) 


222        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  I  have  gone  over  all  the  Charges  made  against  the  doctrines 
set  forth  in  my  Inaugural  Address.  I  have  shown  that  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  me  are  not  contrary  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, but  that  they  are  in  accord  therewith  ;  that  they  are  not 
irreconcilable  with  the  Scriptures,  but  are  the  product  of  a 
comprehensive  study  of  the  Scriptures."     {^The  Defence,"^.  181.) 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  yielded  to  the  argu- 
ments of  the  defendant.  The  prosecution  did  not  con- 
vince the  Presbytery  that  their  premises  were  valid,  or 
that  their  conclusions  from  these  premises  were  valid. 

It  will  thus  appear  to  the  court  of  the  Assembly  that 
the  appellants  did  not  make  out  their  case  in  the 
court  of  the  Presbytery.  They  failed  to  set  forth  the 
facts  in  their  specifications.  They  failed  to  prove  their 
minor  premises  in  Charges  I.  and  II.  They  failed  to 
prove  their  major  premises  in  Charges  IV.,  V.,  VI. 
They  failed  to  prove  relevancy  in  Charges  I.,  II.,  III.^ 
IV.,  and  V.  Therefore  the  inevitable  logic  of  the  case 
was  an  acquittal. 

One  practical  word,  ministers  and  elders,  before  we 
pass  from  this  subject.  I  have  shown  you  the  position 
into  which  these  prosecutors  are  endeavoring  to  force  me 
and  to  force  you.  Granted  that  I  made  a  mistake  in 
that  I  did  not  insist,  in  my  preliminary  objections,  that 
they  ought  to  have  inserted  the  facts  in  their  specifica- 
tions ;  granted  that  I  made  a  mistake  in  my  preliminary 
objections  that  I  did  not  argue  the  question  of  relevancy 
there;  granted  that  the  Presbytery  made  a  mistake  in 
that  they  did  not  settle  all  these  preliminary  questions 
before  they  went  to  trial ;  I  have  given  you  the  reason 
why  this  was  not  done ;  I  have  shown  you  that,  not- 
withstanding all  that  has  been  said  by  the  prosecution, 
all  these  questions  were  actually  argued  by  them  as  well 
as  by  the  defendant  before  the  court  of  the  Presbytery. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  223 

Now  I  ask  you  even  if  all  these  mistakes  have  been 
made,  is  it  fair,  is  it  righteous,  is  it  honorable,  for  them 
to  try  to  force  the  court  of  this  General  Assembly,  in 
despite  of  the  facts  that  I  have  set  before  you,  to  put 
the  case  in  this  form,  that  the  appellee  has  admitted  the 
facts,  the  Presbytery  has  admitted  that  the  charges  are 
relevant,  and  therefore  it  had  no  alternative,  and  you 
have  no  alternative  than  to  vote  for  the  conviction? 

2.   The  New  Matter  introduced  by  Dr.  Lampe. 

The  next  topic  that  I  would  have  to  consider  in  its 
order,  would  be  the  new  matter  introduced  by  Dr.  Lampe. 
If  I  should  go  into  that  matter  fully  and  expose  all 
the  injustice  of  that  procedure,  and  use  the  argument 
that  I  have,  it  would  take  fully  an  hour.  I  think  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  it  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  read  those  specifications  before  you  or  to  go  into  any 
argument  upon  this  part  of  the  case.  I  trust  that  whole 
question  to  the  good  sense  of  the  house. 

[The  appellee  was  under  the  impression  that  the  Gen- 
<eral  Assembly  would  be  consistent  with  itself  and  would 
not  sustain  this  specification  of  the  appeal.  But  in  the 
rush  of  the  final  vote  there  was  no  discrimination.  It 
seems  necessary  therefore  to  give  to  the  public  the  argu 
ment  which  he  had  prepared  for  the  General  Assembly. 

The  report  of  the  Judicial  Committee  which  was  adopt- 
-ed,  and  upon  which  the  appellee  relied,  was  as  follows : 

"  Rev.  Dr.  Baker  :  Mr.  Moderator,  it  gives  me  great  satisfaction 
to  be  able  to  say  that  this  report  which  the  committee  are  about 
to  present  is  entirely  agreeable  to  the  parties  concerned  in  this 
case  ;  and,  being  so,  I  hope  and  am  convinced  that  it  will  be  cor- 
dially approved  by  this  court,  and  that  we  may  enter  without  de- 
bate upon  the  order  prescribed. 

"  The  judicial  committee  respectfully  recommends  the  follow- 


224       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

ing  order  in  the  determination  of  the  appeal  which  has  been  en- 
tertained by  the  General  Assembly. 

"  First.  Inasmuch  as  the  reading  of  the  record  in  the  case  has 
been  by  consent  of  the  parties  omitted,  except  such  particulars 
thereof  as  they  may  deem  necessary  in  presenting  their  respect- 
ive arguments,  the  parties  shall  at  once  be  heard,  the  appellants 
opening  and  closing  the  case,  four  and  one-half  hours  being  al- 
lotted to  the  appellants  and  seven  hours  to  the  appellee. 

"  Second.  The  members  of  the  judicatory  appealed  from,  namely, 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  shall  then  be  heard,  two  hours  be- 
ing allowed  for  this  purpose,  and  ten  minutes  being  granted  to 
each  speaker,  it  being  understood,  however,  that  any  member 
shall  have  the  privilege  of  yielding  his  time  to  another  member. 

"  Third.  Members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  then  be  heard 
for  two  hours,  speeches  being  limited  to  ten  minutes,  according 
to  the  standing  rule. 

"  Fourth.  Thereafter  the  vote  shall  be  taken  upon  each  specifi- 
cation of  error  alleged,  the  form  of  the  question  being  :  Shall  the 
specification  of  error  be  sustained  ? 

"Dr.  Baker  :  Let  me  say — I  say  it  for  the  sake  of  the  court, 
not  for  the  sake  of  the  parties  who,  of  course,  perfectly  under- 
stand it — that  it  may  be  perfectly  understood  at  the  outset,  I  de- 
sire to  say  to  the  court  that  the  appellants  will  introduce  in  their 
opening  all  the  matter  which  they  propose  in  arguing  the  case. 
No  new  matter  whatsoever  will  be  introduced  in  the  closing  argu- 
ment. It  is  proper  that  the  court  should  understand  this.  As  I 
say  the  parties  understand  it  themselves  perfectly." 

Against  this  decision  the  appellants  objected  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  Col.  McCooK  :  Moderator,  Fathers,  and  Brethren  :  Upon  the 
suggestion  of  the  judicial  committee,  and  with  the  assent  of  the 
parties,  it  has  been  arranged  that  the  appellant  shall  present  in 
their  opening  argument  their  entire  case,  with  citation  of  author- 
ities, and  so  much  ot  the  record  as  they  rely  upon. 

"  The  appellant  gladly  acts  upon  this  suggestion  of  the  judicial 
committee,  as  it  is  likely,  in  this  case,  to  save  the  time  of  the 
Assembly.  This  procedure  is,  however,  contrary  to  that  which 
has,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  always  been  followed  in  ecclesiastical 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  225 

courts,  where  the  appellant  has  been  permitted  to  dispose  of  his 
time  and  present  his  case,  opening  and  closing  his  argument  in 
the  manner  which  commended  itself  to  his  best  judgment  within 
the  limit  of  time  fixed  by  the  court,  and  especially  has  this  been 
done  under  our  Book  of  Discipline,  wherein  section  99  provides 
in  sub-section  2  that  '  the  parties  shall  be  heard,  the  appel- 
lant opening  and  closing.' 

"  In  assenting  to  this  suggestion  of  the  judicial  committee,  the 
appellant,  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  a  precedent  which 
might  work  to  the  disadvantage  of  parties  in  other  cases  of  ap- 
peal, calls  attention  to  the  matter,  and  now  publicly,  so  that  the 
facts  may  appear  upon  the  stenographic  record  of  the  judicial 
proceedings,  showing  its  exceptional  character,  and  so  that  a 
stipulation,  as  to  order  of  proceedings,  in  a  single  case,  shall  not 
be  quoted  or  establish  a  precedent  contrary  to  the  direct,  affirm- 
ative, constitutional  right  of  appellants,  under  section  99  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  to  open  and  close  the  argument  and  as  they 
may  think  best." 

This  shows  that  the  General  Assembly  ruled  that  the 
case  should  be  presented  in  the  Assembly  in  the  same 
way  in  which  the  defendant  urged  that  it  ought  to  have 
been  presented  in  this  Presbytery.] 

This  is  the  history  of  this  affair. 

Before  the  defendant  began  his  defence  he  said  to  the 
Moderator  that  he  would  like  to  ask  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  whether  they  have  closed  their  argument. 
To  this  Mr.  McCook  replied :  "  We  have  except  in 
answer  to  yours."     Then  Dr.  Briggs  said  : 

"  I  have  a  reason  for  asking  that  question,  Mr.  Moderator  and 
Brethren.  We  notice  that  there  are  several  members  of  the 
Committee  who  have  not  yet  spoken — especially  Dr.  Lampe, 
who  is  the  Biblical  scholar  of  the  Committee.  He  has  not  yet 
spoken  on  the  question  of  the  charges.  If  he  has  anj^thing  further 
to  say  I  think  it  should  be  said  now,  in  order  that  I  may  have  an 
opportunity  to  reply  to  it.  I  do  not  want  them  to  go  over  this 
matter  a  second  time,  and  after  I  have  made  my  defence.  I  wish 
to  make  my  defence  against  all  the  Prosecuting  Committee  have 


226        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  say  ;  and,  if  Dr.  Lampe  has  anything  prepared,  as  I  suspect  he 
has,  it  is  his  duty  to  present  it  to  the  Presbytery  now.  He  has 
no  right  to  present  anything  after  I  have  spoken  that  he  has  pre- 
pared beforehand  in  support  of  the  charges.  He  has  only  the 
right  to  present  afterwards  a  response  to  my  defence  ;  and  I  now 
give  notice  that  Dr.  Lampe  and  the  Prosecuting  Committee  will 
be  held  strictly  to  that.  He  has  no  right  to  traverse  the  whole 
case  again  and  introduce  new  matter  against  me.  If  he  has  any- 
thing of  that  kind  to  present  he  should  submit  it  now.  I  have  a 
reason  for  this,  Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren,  because  I  suspect 
that  the  policy  of  this  Committee  is  now  exactly  the  same  as  that 
which  they  pursued  in  Portland,  at  the  General  Assembly,  last 
May.  Oh,  they  had  very,  very  little  to  say ;  they  would  not 
occupy  much  time  ;  they  would  take  any  time  that  the  General 
Assembly  saw  fit  to  give  them.  They  did  not  take  very  much 
time  at  the  beginning,  to  be  sure,  but  after  I  had  finished,  then 
they  came  in  with  new  material,  which  I  had  no  opportunity 
whatever  to  respond  to.  Now,  I  call  upon  the  Committee  if  they 
have  anything  more  to  say,  to  say  it  now,  or  forever  after  hold 
their  peace. 

"  Mr.  McCooK :  I  hoped  that  I  would  not  have  to  say  another 
word  on  this  floor,  and  I  should  not  have  done  so  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  that  Prof.  Briggs  has  raised  a  question,  which  of  course 
there  is  no  objection  to  his  raising,  and  there  is  no  possible  ob- 
jection to  answering  it  at  this  time,  although  it  might  better 
have  been  raised  in  the  ordinary  course  of  procedure. 

"  The  Prosecuting  Committee  do  not  know  at  this  time  of  any- 
thing else  that  we  wish  to  present  in  the  opening  of  this  argu- 
ment. Under  the  provision  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  the  Pros- 
ecuting Committee  are  charged  with  the  responsibility,  which  is 
a  great  disadvantage,  of  opening  the  case ;  then  the  accused  is 
to  be  heard,  and  the  Prosecuting  Committee  are  entitled  to  close 
the  case.  And,  if  any  attempt  is  made  by  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee to  do  anything  which  the  Book  does  not  permit  and 
which  is  not  right,  I  feel  that  the  judicatory  would  be  safe  in 
expecting  an  objection  to  be  raised  to  it  by  Prof.  Briggs,  and  it 
would  be  fairly  passed  upon  at  the  time  when  such  a  question  is 
raised.  We  do  not  know  at  this  time  of  anything  additional 
that  we  wish  to  present  in  advance  in  opening  the  matter,  or  we 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  227 

would  have  presented  it.  What  will  be  developed  by  Prof. 
Briggs'  argument — as  we  are  also  in  the  unfortunate  position  of 
not  being  mind  readers — we  cannot  anticipate;  but  whatever  it 
becomes  our  duty  to  answer  to,  growing  out  of  his  argument,  I 
feel  assured  that  the  house  may  depend  upon  our  making  the 
best  possible  answer  in  our  power. 

"The  Moderator:  I  think  the  matter  is  understood. 

"  Dr.  Field:  Then  do  we  understand  that  the  reply  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  will  be  strictly  confined  to  the  line  of 
defence .'' 

"  Mr.  McCooK :  It  will  be  confined  strictly  to  the  discussion 
before  the  house.  That  is  all  the  restriction  that  will  be  made 
upon  us. 

"The  Moderator:  The  Prosecuting  Committee,  I  believe, 
have  a  right  to  be  heard  after  the  defence. 

"  Dr  Brown  :  The  statement  has  just  been  made  by  the 
spokesman  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  that  the  Book  of 
Discipline  provides  that  the  prosecution  shall  begin,  and  shall 
be  followed  by  the  defendant,  and  then  that  the  prosecution 
have  a  right  to  close  the  case.  I  wish  to  ask  the  Committee  to 
point  out  the  section  of  the  Book  which  contains  that  provision. 
I  am  not  aware  that  there  is  any  such  provision. 

"  The  Moderator  :  That  is  an  order  which  is  usually  fol- 
lowed. 

"  Dr.  Brown  :  I  ask  that  the  section  in  the  Book  which  pro- 
vides that  procedure  be  pointed  out. 

"A  Member:  They  cannot  do  it.  There  is  no  such  section 
in  the  Book. 

"The  Moderator:  I  think  there  is  nothing  in  the  Book 
which  bears  upon  that,  but  this  is  the  order  that  is  generally 
pursued. 

"  Dr.  Brown  :  Will  you,  Mr.  Moderator,  then  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  provision  in  the  Book  which  points  out 
the  procedure  stated  by  the  gentleman  who  represents  the  Pros- 
ecuting Committee? 

"  The  Moderator  :  That  will  be  understood,  I  suppose.  The 
question  now  is  upon  taking  recess. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  Just  one  word,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wanted  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  house  to  the  situation  in  order  to  guard 
my  rights  in  the  premises.     I  simply  desire  to  state  now  that  if 


228        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

any  injustice  is  done  in  the  opening  up  of  a  new  line  of  argu- 
ment, that  at  the  proper  time  I  will  throw  myself  upon  the  jus- 
tice of  this  body,  relying  upon  their  sense  of  what  is  right  and 
just  to  give  me  a  fair  opportunity  to  reply. 

"The  Moderator:  I  think  the  house  will  do  that  without 
doubt."    (Stenographicai  Report,  pp.  754-759.) 

After  completing  his  argument  Dr.  Briggs  said  : 

"  Before  the  prosecution  proceeds  I  wish  to  have  some  rules 
adopted  by  the  house.  It  is  very  evident  from  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline that  they  have  no  right  to  present  any  further  argument. 
I  may  say  that  I  would  not  myself  make  this  objection  were  it 
not  necessary  as  a  party.  The  only  provision  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  on  this  subject  is,  '  And  then  the  parties  themselves 
shall  be  heard.'  The  prosecution  have  no  right  of  rebuttal,  ac- 
cording to  the  Book.  I  make  that  point,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  I 
shall  ask  a  ruling  upon  it — that  the  prosecution  have  no  right  of 
rebuttal,  according  to  the  Book.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  make 
no  objection  to  their  speaking  in  rebuttal  for  a  reasonable  time, 
provided  they  ask  that  privilege  of  the  house,  and  the  house 
grants.it.  I  am  not  objecting  to  the  prosecution  having  a  right 
of  rebuttal,  if  the  house  gives  it  to  them ;  but  I  do  object  to 
their  assuming  that  they  have  a  right  according  to  the  Book. 
The  prosecution,  as  you  will  remember,  have  insisted  on  the 
letter  of  the  law  from  the  beginning.  When  I  have  in  the  course 
of  the  argument  called  your  attention  to  precedents  of  our 
courts,  they  have  said,  '  Oh,  we  have  a  new  Book  of  Discipline  ; 
we  must  stick  closely  to  the  new  Book.'  Now  they  are  in  ex- 
actly the  fix  that  they  have  put  me  in  all  the  way  through.  They 
have  asked  the  pound  of  flesh,  and  up  to  this  time  you  have 
given  it  to  them.  The  question  now  is,  whether  they  shall  have 
the  blood  also.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  ask  your  ruling  as  to 
whether  they  have  that  right.  If  the  moderator  decides  they 
have  the  right,  I  shall  appeal  to  the  house.  Then  if  the  house 
decides  in  my  favor  I  shall  not  object  to  a  motion  that  they  have 
a  certain  time  given  them.  But  I  shall  ask,  to  save  time,  that  there 
shall  be  a  ruling  to  this  effect :  That  the  prosecution  be  required 
to  limit  themselves  strictly  to  rebuttal;  that  they  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  traverse  the  whole  case  and  bring  in  a  new  argument 
against  me,  and  force  me  to  prepare  a  reply  at  this  late  time 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  229 

when  my  strength  is  well-nigh  exhausted  and  when  the  patience 
of  this  house  is  well-nigh  exhausted.  I  called  upon  them,  you 
remember,  at  the  conclusion  of  their  argument,  to  know  if  they 
had  anything  more  to  say,  and,  if  so,  to  say  it;  so  that  I  might 
know  all  there  was  against  me,  and  might  be  able  to  reply  to  it. 
And  I  very  much  believe,  from  their  procedure  in  the  higher 
court  last  May,  and  from  certain  other  things  that  they  have 
claimed  upon  this  floor,  that  they  will  claim  the  right  to  do  ex- 
actly what  they  please.  That  is  the  right  they  have  claimed  all 
the  time,  and  it  is  a  right  which  I,  as  a  party,  cannot  concede  at 
this  time.  There  is  one  other  point,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  that  is 
that  they  shall  be  distinctly  prohibited  from  using  in  this  rebut- 
tal any  material  that  they  have  prepared  prior  to  the  delivery  of 
my  argument.  I  apprehend  that  a  ver>-  large  portion  of  the 
argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  has  been  prepared  for  months  and 
months  before  I  appeared  in  ray  defence.  I  claim  the  justice  of 
this  house.  I  ask  no  indulgence  and  no  mercy  from  any  one. 
I  ask  the  justice  of  this  house,.that  they  shall  be  prohibited 
from  bringing  in  here  at  this  stage  of  the  argument  anything 
not  prepared  in  answer  to  my  argument  here,  thus  forcing  you 
to  go  into  Christmas  week  and  hold  sessions  of  this  court,  when 
we  are  all  exhausted,  and  when  some  members  of  the  court  must 
retire  and  lose  their  vote  in  order  to  save  their  health  or  their 
lives.  I  claim  that  it  is  not  just  for  them  to  bring  in  at  this 
stage  a  long  argument  which  was  prepared  months  and  months 
ago.  If,  with  these  restrictions  and  this  understanding,  they 
can  be  allowed  to  speak  for  a  limited  time,  I  shall  not  object ; 
but  unless  these  restrictions  are  made,  I  object.  I  ask  you,  Mr. 
Moderator,  to  please  rule  on  my  first  point. 

"  Mr.  McCooK :  Dr.  Briggs  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  the 
Book  of  Discipline  provides  no  procedure  upon  this  particular 
point.  It  is  the  universal  custom,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  in  every 
court — ecclesiastical,  civil,  or  criminal— that  the  person  bringing 
the  charge,  or  the  prosecution— such  as  the  prosecuting  commit- 
tee in  this  case— should  open  their  case ;  the  defence  shall  then 
be  heard,  and  the  prosecution  have  the  right  of  reply.  That 
procedure,  I  believe,  is  universal.  It  is  not  in  terms  expressed 
in  our  Book  of  Discipline.  So  far  as  the  presentation  of  this 
case  is  concerned  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  we  have 
opened   it,  and  we  have  presented  our  evidence.     We   have 


230        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

no  desire  to  suggest  any  new  evidence.  But  we  do  claim,  as  a 
matter  of  justice  and  of  fairness  and  of  right,  that  now,  when  the 
defendant  has  been  heard  in  his  defence — and,  of  course,  we 
could  not  anticipate  what  he  would  say  to  this  court,  and  courts 
generally  do  not  expect  the  prosecution  to  anticipate,  but  give 
them  the  right  to  hear  the  argument  and  to  present  their  argu- 
ment in  reply — that  we  have  a  right  to  present  our  reply.  As  I 
have  said  several  times,  I  assume  that  this  court  will  confine  our 
closing  argument  to  the  presentation  of  our  view  in  answer  to 
what  the  defendant  has  presented,  and  only  to  such  of  his  evi- 
dence as  may  have  been  touched  on  for  the  first  time.  In  other 
words,  we  wish  the  right — we  think  it  is  our  right,  and  we  feel  very 
sure  this  Presbytery  will  grant  us  the  right — to  answer  fully  and 
properly,  and  nothing  else,  the  arguments  which  have  been  pre- 
sented here  by  the  accused.  That  we  claim,  and  we  think  it  is 
in  the  interest  of  fairness  and  of  the  time  of  this  body  and  of 
the  parties,  and  of  all  concerned,  that  for  the  saving  of  an  hour 
or  two,  or  a  few  hours,  the  prosecuting  committee  should  not  at 
this  time  be  deprived  of  their  right  to  make  their  answer.  This 
is  the  only  time  we  will  ever  have,  I  hope,  the  opportunity  of 
presenting  an  answer  to  Dr.  Briggs'  argument.  If  we  do  not 
make  that  answer  here  and  now,  we  will  never  have  the  oppor- 
tunity. In  fairness  and  justice  and  right,  we  claim  that  we 
should  be  heard,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  to  the  interest 
of  the  prosecution  or  in  the  interest  of  the  time  of  the  court  or 
of  the  defendant  that  at  this  time  the  discussion  should  be  cut 
oflf  unduly.  We  have  not  interrupted  him.  I  think  the  house 
will  bear  me  out  in  that  statement.  I  have  been  very  careful 
never  to  interject  a  word  when  Dr.  Briggs  was  speaking  unless 
it  was  absolutely  necessary.  We  have  heard  him  fully,  and  now 
common  justice  and  the  rights  of  the  Church  which  we  claim  to 
represent,  demand  that  we  should  be  heard  with  the  same  con- 
sideration, with  the  same  unlimited  time,  if  necessary — although 
we  are  considering  the  time  and  will  keep  ourselves  within  all 
proper  limits,  but  we  think  we  have  that  right.  We  do  not  ask 
it  as  a  favor.  It  is  a  question  of  right  in  the  trial  of  such  a 
cause.  Of  course  we  submit  everything  to  the  ruling  of  the 
house,  subject  to  proper  exception;  but  we  do  think  it  is  our 
right,  and  we  think  it  is  in  the  interest  of  all  the  parties  that 
we  should  be  heard,  and  heard  fully. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  231 

"  Dr.  Field  :  Mr.  Moderator,  you  have  already  decided  the 
question,  and  Mr.  McCook  agrees  entirely  with  you  that  the 
prosecution  have  no  right  whatever  under  the  Book,  and  Dr. 
Briggs  is  ready  to  grant  it  as  ia  privilege.  Now,  why  all  this 
discussion  ? 

"The  Moderator:  The  Moderator  is  impelled  to  decide  that 
the  question  of  order  is  not  well  taken,  and  for  these  reasons  : 

"First :  That  the  usage  in  such  cases  is  against  the  point 
which  is  raised. 

"Second:  That  usage  is  based  upon  the  law  of  the  church 
governing  complaints  and  appeals,  which  distinctly  gives  us  this 
order  of  the  opening  and  the  closing  being  on  the  part  of  those 
who  present  their  case — the  greater  including  the  less. 

"  Third :  That  the  parties  cannot  have  been  said  to  have 
been  heard  until  the  prosecution  has  had  a  full  opportunity  to 
present'its  whole  case.  It  has  only  presented  a  part  of  that  case 
so  far.  It  has  taken  a  very  small  portion  of  time  compared 
with  that  accorded  to  the  defendant.  You  have  heard  the  de- 
fendant patiently  and  fully,  as  you  should  have  done ;  and  now, 
in  the  view  of  the  Moderator,  it  is  only  fair,  it  is  only  in  accord- 
ance with  our  usage  and  with  the  principle  of  our  Book,  that 
the  prosecution  should  be  heard  fully,  but  not  presenting  new 
matter. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  Mr.  Moderator,  I  shall  have  to  appeal  from 
your  decision— not,  as  I  said  before,  that  I  wish  to  prevent  the 
prosecution 

"The  Moderator  (interposing) :  Dr.  Briggs,  you  have  already 
been  heard. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  I  wish  to  state  the  grounds  of  my  appeal. 

"The  Moderator  :  If  you  wish  to  appeal,  your  appeal  will  be 
put  to  the  House  without  debate. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  I  have  a  right  to  state  the  grounds,  haven't  I  } 

"  The  Moderator  :  There  can  be  no  debate.  Do  you  appeal 
from  the  decision  } 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  I  do  appeal  from  the  decision. 

"  The  Moderator  :  I  will  put  the  question  in  this  way,  so 
there  can  be  no  misunderstanding  about  it.  Those  in  favor  of 
sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  will  say  aye — those 
opposed  to  the  decision  of  the  Moderator Sustained.  ' 


232        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Dr.  Lampe  then  proceeded  to  make  the  chief  argu- 
ment for  the  prosecution,  covering  the  whole  ground  of 
the  case  and  under  the  guise  of  a  rebuttal  introducing  a 
large  amount  of  new  matter.  To  this  new  matter  the 
defendant  made  several  exceptions  as  follows  : 

[See  The  Case  against  Prof.  Briggs,  Part  II., 
pp.  143-153,  where  these  exceptions  are  given.] 

The  Moderator  also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Dr.  Lampe  was  exceeding  the  limits. 

"  It  is  very  difficult  for  the  Moderator  to  bear  in  mind  all  the 
evidence  that  has  been  submitted,  but  I  am  a  little  in  doubt 
whether  these  authorities  were  me^ntioned  in  your  evidence,  Dr. 
Lampe. 

"  Dr.  Lampe  :  I  am  speaking  to  this  point,  that  the  Church 
was 

"  The  Moderator  :  I  think  you  are  giving  ground  for  an 
exception. 

"Mr.  McCoOK  :  Dr.  Lampe  must  of  course  answer  the  argu- 
ments presented  by  Dr.  Briggs  on  the  question  under  discussion. 
He  cited  a  great  many  authorities  upon  those  subjects,  and  in  illus- 
tration of  the  position  of  the  Church  Dr.  Lampe  follows  that 
line.  If  he  trenches  in  the  slightest  degree  on  what  is  right,  an 
exception  should  be  made,  as  has  been  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  and 
it  would  be  quite  proper ;  but  Dr.  Lampe  must  have  liberty  of 
illustration  in  answer  to  the  argument  that  was  taken  on  the 
other  side.  •  ' 

"Dr.  Van  Dyke:  Mr.  Moderator:  I  think  your  exception  is 
certainly  wise  and  just ;  for  not  only  are  there  new  evidences, 
but  they  have  not  the  slightest  thing  in  the  world  to  do  with  in- 
errancy. Dr.  Lampe  is  discussing  the  question  of  inspiration  and 
religious  infallibility,  which  has  never  been  called  in  question. 

"•  Dr.  Briggs  :  I  am  not  going  to  interrupt  Dr.  Lampe  in  the 
slightest  degree,  nor  would  I  have  .said  a  word  if  the  Moderator 
had  not  spoken,  preferring  to  reserve  the  right  of  exception  until 
the  close  of  his  argument,  as  I  did  to-day  ;  but  you  will  remem- 
ber that  I  was  compelled  by  the  ruling  of  the  house  at  the  begin- 
ning, against  my  own  judgment,  to  put  m  your  hands  all  the 
evidence  that  I  was  going  to  use  and  I  did  it.     Every  citation 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  233 

that  I  made  I  put  into  the  hands  of  the  other  side,  that  they 
might  verify  it  and  use  it,  and  they  have  had  all  the  advantage 
of  that.  Now  you  observe  that  Dr.  Lampe  is  bringing  in  a  large 
amount  of  evidence,  of  which  I  had  no  notification  then,  and 
which  I  have  had  no  opportunity  to  consider,  and  which  you  see 
it  is  probable  I  will  not  be  able  to  consider  at  all. 

"The  Moderator:  An  exception  will  be  entered  if  you 
desire  it. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  :  Yes,  sir ;  I  desire  an  exception."  (Sienograph- 
ical  Report,  p.  121 5.) 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe, 
Dr.  Van  Dyke  said  : 

"  I  de&ire  to  ofTer  a  motion,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  without  re- 
mark, as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Moderator  has 
ruled  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  in  closing  their  argument 
should  not  introduce  new  evidence  or  traverse  new  ground  and 
that  they  have  done  so,  an  opportunity  should  be  granted  to  the 
defendant  to  reply,  if  he  desires,  and  to  close  the  case."  .... 

Dr.  Alexander  said : 

"  Mr.  Moderator  r  When  Dr.  Briggs  intimated  a  suspicion  that 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  might  be  holding  back  deliberately 
with  testimony  or  evidence  in  order  to  crush  him  with  it  after 
the  opportunity  for  response  had  gone  by,  I  resented  that  suspi- 
cion, and  if  it  had  been  in  order  I  should  have  risen  in  my  place 
and  asked  him  to  withdraw  those  words,  because  it  seemed  to 
me  an  unworthy  suspicion.  Now  that  the  suspicion  seems  to  be 
iustified  by  the  event,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  say.  I  am  puzzled  and 
distressed.  The  members  of  this  Prosecuting  Committee  are  my 
personal  friends  ;  I  cannot  believe  that  there  is  one  of  them  that 
would  consciously  do  an  injustice — I  won't  believe  it.  But  I 
cannot  shrink  from  the  fact  that  a  wrong  has  been  done  in  some 
way;  and  the  more  I  think  of  it,  and  the  more  I  think  of  the  de- 
fendant, from  whom  I  differ  so  widely,  worn  out  and  weak  and 
suffering  from  this  terrific  strain,  required  now  to  meet  this  fresh 
assault — why,  the  more  every  drop  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood  in  me 
protests  against  it.     We  cannot  remedy  the  wrong.     All  that  we 


234        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

can  do  is  to  give  the  defendant,  if  he  desires  it  (I  hope  he  will 
not  desire  it),  an  opportunity  to  meet  this  fresh  evidence  and 
this  fresh  argument ;  giving  him  reasonable  time  to  prepare  his 
defence,  and.  if  need  be,  givmg  the  prosecution  the  last  word ;  I 
should  not  object  to  that  at  all.  But  having  spent  so  much 
time,  we  cannot  afford  to  seem  even  to  do  an  injustice  to  any 
one. 

The  Moderator  :  "  The  Moderator  understands  that,  per- 
haps without  any  intention  to  bring  in  new  evidence,  quotations 
were  made  in  the  way  of  illustration  from  certain  authors, 
although  strictly  speaking  their  names  should  have  been  sub- 
mitted before;  and  Dr.  Briggs  has  met  that  point  already  by 
takmg  two  exceptions,  and  of  course  he  reserves  his  rights  in 
view  of  the  carrying  up  of  the  case  to  a  higher  court,  and  it 
might  all  be  conserved  there.  But  if  Dr.  Briggs  chooses  to  make 
answer  to  any  of  these  points  that  he  considers  to  be  new  evi- 
dence, or  that  are  actually  new  evidence,  he  has  a  right  to  do  so. 
(Stenographical  Report,  pp   1343- 1344.) 

"  Dr.  Van  Dyke  :  It  is  quite  evident  that  new  matter  has  been 
introduced.  (Cries  of  No  !  No !)  Those  who  do  not  yet  see  it 
will  see  it  when  the  court  comes  to  vote  upon  it.  So  it  is  simply 
a  matter  of  fairness  and  justice  that  we  should  allow  the  defend- 
ant, if  he  wishes  it,  to  reply.  It  would  be  an  unheard-of  thing  in 
any  civil  court  that  a  prosecution  should  be  allowed  to  traverse 
new  ground  and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  allowed  to  be 
heard  or  to  offer  evidence  in  rebuttal.  It  is  a  thing  to  cause  the 
blood  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  to  boil  within  him,  every  drop  of  it, 
too.  Moreover,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  not  simply  that  new  mat- 
ter has  been  introduced,  but  that  statements  which  have  been 
made  by  the  defendant  again  and  again  upon  this  floor  in  respect 
to  doctrines  which  he  rejects,  have  been  again  attributed  to  him. 
And  I  maintain  that  ....  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  fairness 
and  candor  that  we  should  make  this  offer  to  Dr.  Briggs,  whether 
he  will  accept  it  or  not,  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of  this  house, 
and  in  the  way  of  decency."     (pp.  1351-2.) 

After  considerable  debate,  Dr.  Briggs,  by  the  consent 
of  the  prosecution  and  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
house,  was  heard.     He  said  : 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  235 

"  The  Biblical  scholar  (and  may  I  also  say,  the  historian  ?)  of 
the  prosecution  has  spoken.  He  has  done  precisely  what  the 
defendant,  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the  argument  for  the  defence, 
intimated  to  the  Presbytery  that  he  would  do.  He  has  disre- 
garded the  evidence  as  set  forth  in  the  Amended  Charges  and 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery,  and  has  introduced  a  large  amount 
of  new  evidence.  He  has  ignored  the  case  as  presented  by  the 
real  chairman  of  the  prosecution,  as  well  as  by  the  ostensible 
chairman,  in  their  opening  arguments.  He  has  not  considered 
the  argument  for  the  defence  as  worthy  of  rebuttal.  He  has 
introduced  such  a  large  amount  of  new  matter  as  to  make  an 
entirely  new  case.  The  ostensible  chairman  of  the  prosecution 
promised  that  the  prosecution  would  introduce  no  new  matter. 
But  this  promise,  like  many  others  from  that  same  source,  was 
a  disguise  of  its  fulfilment.  Dr.  Lampe  has  done  precisely  what 
was  promised  and  agreed  he  should  not  do.  He  has  trampled 
under  foot  the  rights  of  the  defendant,  the  precedents  which 
govern  ail  trials,  and  the  rulings  of  this  court.  The  injustice 
and  the  wrong  have  been  done.  The  court  has  permitted  them. 
The  argument  goes  up  on  the  Stenographical  Report  to  the 
higher  courts  to  the  injury  of  the  defence.  What  shall  the  de- 
fendant do  under  the  circumstances  ?  Shall  he  claim  the  right 
to  make  a  new  argument  against  this  new  case  ?  He  might  justly 
do  so.  And  yet  the  time  already  given  to  this  trial  has  been  so 
extended,  the  strength  and  patience  of  the  court  have  been  so 
strained,  the  health  of  some  of  the  dearest  friends  of  the  defend- 
ant has  become  so  imperilled,  and  his  own  vigor  is  so  much 
impaired,  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  would  rather 
be  convicted  than  undertake  a  new  argument  at  this  stage.  It 
has  come  to  this  pass,  that  members  of  the  court  are  saying.  If 
such  things  can  be  done  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  it  costs  more  to  be  a  Presby- 
terian than  it  is  worth. 

"  It  is  necessary,  however,  that  I  should  say  a  few  words." 

He  then  went  on  to  show  in  a  few  examples  the 
great  injustice  that  had  been  done.  (See  T/ie  Defence, 
pp.  184-185,  189-192.)  The  action  of  the  Presbytery- 
was  as  follows  (Stenographic  Report,  pp.  1377-1378) : 


236       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  Dr.  George  Alexander  :  If  it  be  in  order  I  move  that  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  have  the  opportunity  to  close  the 
case,  if  they  desire  to  do  so. 

"  The  Moderator  :  I  think  the  case  should  close  here.  The 
Moderator  decides  that  the  case  is  now  closed. 

"  Dr.  C.  L.  Thompson  :  May  we  now  take  up  from  the  table 
the  resolutions  that  were  offered  by  Dr.  Wylie  as  to  the  order  of 
procedure  ? 

"  Mr.  McCoOK  :  I  do  not  wish  to  say  a  word  further  than 
simply  to  record  a  formal  exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  Moder- 
ator as  to  the  matter  being  closed  without  the  committee  being 
further  heard. 

"  Dr.  Sutton  ;  Take  an  appeal  to  the  house. 

"  The  Moderator  :  What  is  Mr.  McCook's  idea  in  regard 
to  it? 

"Mr.  McCooK  :  I  cannot  remove  your  decision.  It  was  sug- 
gested that  we  be  heard,  and  you  decided  that  we  should  not  be 
heard.  I  simply  wish  to  enter  an  exception  to  that  decision  and 
ask  that  it  be  noted  upon  the  records. 

"The  Moderator:  I  will  recall  that  decision  for  a  moment 
in  order  to  ask  a  question, — on  what  ground  the  committee 
should  desire  now  to  be  heard  further. 

"  Mr.  McCooK :  As  I  stated  before,  simply  as  a  matter  of 
order.  We  do  not  wish  to  say  one  word  in  reply  to  what  Dr. 
Briggs  has  said  ;  but,  as  I  said — not  just  now,  but  when  we  had 
the  floor  before  recess — as  a  matter  of  order  I  thought  it  was 
our  right  to  reply;  but  as  the  Moderator. has  decided  that  we 
should  not  have  that  right,  I  simply  wish  to  take  an  exception. 

J"  The  Moderator:  The  Moderator  is  very  clearly  of  the 
view  already  embodied  in  his  ruling,  that  the  prosecuting  com- 
mittee had  the  right  to  open  and  to  close — to  be  fully  heard  ; 
and  that  they  should  close,  provided  no  new  matter  should  be 
introduced.  New  matter  having  been  introduced  in  the  view 
of  the  Moderator,  Dr.  Briggs  has  now  made  reply.  The  Moder- 
ator's view  is,  and  his  decision  is,  that  the  case  is  now  closed. 

"  Dr.  Booth  :  You  allow  the  exception,  of  course  ? 

"The  Moderator:  Certainly." 

Judge,  ye  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Court,  whether 
the  prosecution  suffered  a  grievance  in  this  matter  or 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  237 

whether  they  did  not  do  the  defendant  an  irreparable 
wrong  and  give  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  sufficient 
reason  for  censuring  them  for  a  breach  of  faith  and  a  vio- 
lation of  the  rulings  of  the  court. 

(3).  Prejudice. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  "  manifestation  of  preju- 
dice in  the  conduct  of  the  case  by  Dr.  Geo.  Alexander, 
Rev.  Antonio  Arrighi,  Dr.  Henry  M.  Field,  Dr.  Thomas 
S.  Hastings,  and  Dr.  Henry  J,  Van  Dyke."  (IV.  2).  Also, 

"  T-hat  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field, 
D.D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Hall  Mcllvaine, 
D.D.,  and  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  sat  and  deliberated  in 
the  trial  of  this  case  and  voted  to  acquit  the  said  accused,  upon 
each  and  every  specification  and  charge,  after  manifestations  of 
prejudice  in  the  conduct  of  the  case,  on  the  part  of  the  said 
members  was  charged  in  the  appeal  to  and  sustained  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1892."     (IV.  5.) 

Also 

"  In  this,  that  sundry  Directors,  Officers  and  Professors  of 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  to  wit :  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D., 
Rev.  Edward  L.  Clark,  D.D.,  Rev.  Charles  R.  Gillett,  D.D.,  Rev. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  J.  Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.D.,  Rev. 
Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  Rev.  W.  M.  Smith,  D.D.,  Rev.  Marvin  R. 
Vincent,  D.D.,  and  William  A.  Wheelock,  Esq.,  sat  and  deliber- 
ated in  the  said  trial  and  voted  to  acquit  the  said  accused  upon 
each  and  ever)'  specification  and  charge,  said  Directors,  Officers 
and  Professors  having  previously  approved  and  published  the 
said  Inaugural  Address,  as  appears  in  the  first  edition  which 
bears  the  imprint :  '  Printed  for  The  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, New  York,  1891,'  'Copyright,  1891,  by  The  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,'  and  as  also  appears  in  the  second  edition  of 
said  Inaugural  .Address,  which  was  also  'Copyright.  1891,  byThe 
Union  Theological  Seminary,'  which  said  Inaugural  Address 
contained  the  alleged  erroneous  doctrines  for  the  holding  and 
publishing  of  which  doctrines  the  accused  was  then  on  trial." 
(IV.  6.) 


238        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

Dr.  George  Alexander  is  in  your  presence.  He  is 
able  to  speak  for  himself.  He  needs  no  defence  from 
me. 

The  Rev.  Antonio  Arrighi,  the  faithful  missionary  to 
the  Italian  population  of  New  York,  is  not  present  in  the 
Assembly,  but  he  has  spoken  for  himself  in  a  recent 
letter  to  the  Evangelist,  as  follows : 

"  As  an  appeal  is  to  be  made  to  the  General  Assembly  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and  one  of  the  arguments  stated  in  that  ap- 
peal is  that  some  of  the  members  of  the  court  that  tried  and 
acquitted  Dr.  Briggs  were  moved  so  to  do  because  prejudiced, 
and  my  name  is  used  in  that  argument,  I  wish  to  say :  That  I  do 
not  know  from  what  motives  others  were  led  to  vote  for  acquittal, 
but  as  far  as  I  am  myself  concerned,  I  assert  that  I  voted  as  I 
did  because,  after  having  heard  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  I 
was  fully  persuaded  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  not 
proven  nor  sustained  any  of  the  charges  or  specifications,  and  I 
voted  as  I  did  because  I  had  made  my  vote  a  subject  of  earnest 
prayer,  and  I  believe  that  I  was  guided  by  the  Spirit  to  vote  as  I 
did.  I  may  state  here  that  my  vote  was  not  in  the  least  influ- 
enced by  any  other  cause,  but  only  by  an  intelligent  sense  of  jus- 
tice. During  or  before  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  not  a  word  was 
said  to  me  by  any  of  the  friends  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  influence  me 
to  be  favorable  to  him.  Not  such,  however,  was  the  case  with 
the  supporters  of  the  prosecution ;  one  of  the  strongest  friends 
of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  will  recall  to  mind  that  he 
called  me  to  his  office  and  tried  to  have  me  look  upon  the  case 
in  the  same  light  as  he  did.  And  another  equally  strong  friend 
of  the  prosecution  called  at  my  church  and  begged  hard  to  in- 
duce me  to  stay  away  from  the  court  so  that  I  might  lose  the 
right  to  vote.  His  reason  for  this  request  was  that  he  himself 
was  obliged  to  be  away.  I  do  not  know  what  right  the  Commit- 
tee of  Prosecution  had  thus  to  use  my  name  as  a  prejudiced 
person ;  however,  I  will  say,  that  no  man,  no  committee,  how- 
ever able  it  may  be,  has  any  right  to  pass  judgment  upon  the 
motive  for  action  of  any  man ;  and  in  this  they  show  how  weak 
their  case  must  be.  Besides  the  reasons  already  stated,  I  was 
moved  to  vote  as  I  did  because,  above  all,  I  love  the  Church  to 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  239 

which  r  belong,  and  earnestly  desire  her  peace  and  prosperity. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  devil  has  been  laughing  at  us  long 
enough,  and  the  world  has  been  saying,  '  See  how  those  breth- 
ren quarrel  with  each  other.'  I  therefore  hope  that  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  will  put  a  stop  to  all  such  sneers  by  stopping  any 
further  proceeding  in  this  unfortunate  affair.  Thus  it  will  com- 
pel the  world  to  say,  '  See  how  these  brethren  love  each  other, 
and  how  peacefully  they  work  for  the  upbuilding  the  cause  of 
Christ.' 

"  Yours  truly,  AntONIO  Arrighi, 

"  Pastor  of  the  Italian  Evangelical  Church. 
"  155  Worth  Street,  New  York." 

The  following  distinguished  divines  are  accused  by 
these  prosecutors  of  prejudice  : 

Dr.  Henry  M.  Field,  the  editor  of  the  Evangelist ;  Dr. 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  the  President  of  Union  Theolog- 
ical Seminary  ;  Dr.  Henry  J.  Van  Dyke,  pastor  of  the 
Brick  Church.  If  such  men  as  these  can  be  charged 
with  prejudice  on  the  flimsy  grounds  of  the  words  cited 
out  of  their  historical  occasions,  where  will  you  be  able 
to  find  unprejudiced  judges? 

It  is  alleged  that  the  General  Assembly  at  Portland 
sustained  a  specification  of  prejudice  against  Drs.  Brown, 
Field,  Hastings,  Mcllvaine,  and  Van  Dyke.  It  is  unfor- 
tunately true  that  the  Assembly  at  Portland  did  all  that 
the  prosecution  asked  them  to  do  and  put  this  imputa- 
tion upon  these  five  distinguished  names.  But  granted 
that  these  five  were  prejudiced  in  1891,  does  it  follow 
that  they  were  prejudiced  in  1892  ?  How  can  you  prove 
that  they  did  not  accept  the  rebuke  of  the  Assembly 
with  meekness  and  sit  in  the  trial  in  a  judicial  frame  of 
mind  ?  There  is  no  law  of  the  Church  which  excludes 
them  from  their  seat  as  judges  in  the  case. 

It  is  alleged  that  Professors  and  Directors  of  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  nine  in  number,  having  approved 


240         ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

and  published  the  Inaugural  Address,  ought  not  to  have 
sat  as  judges  in  the  case.  But  this  is  a  misstatement  of 
the  fact.  It  is  not  true  that  the  publication  of  the 
Inaugural  on  the  authority  of  the  Directors  implies  ap- 
proval of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Inaugural  on  the 
part  of  any  of  the  nine  professors  and  directors.  I 
would  not  presume  to  say  that  these  professors  and 
directors  approved  of  any  of  the  views  stated  in  the 
Inaugural.  They  approved  it  as  suitable  for  publica- 
tion— and  that  is  all.  It  does  not  imply  that  they  could 
not  sit  as  judges  in  the  case  and  decide  according  to  the 
evidence.  There  is  no  law  by  which  the  friends  and 
associates  of  the  accused  should  be  excluded  from  the 
court  of  the  Presbytery  in  his  trial. 

If  the  court  of  the  Presbytery  had  been  of  the  nature  of 
a  jury  in  a  criminal  court,  the  challenges  would  not  have 
been  all  on  the  one  side.  The  defendant  might  justly 
have  challenged  those  members  of  the  court  who  went 
to  Detroit  and  voted  to  veto  his  transfer  to  the  Edward 
Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  He  might  justly 
have  challenged  those  who  took  sides  with  the  prosecu- 
tion against  their  Presbytery  before  the  last  General  As- 
sembly. He  might  justly  have  challenged  those  who 
on  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery  and  elsewhere  had  shown 
personal  animosity  to  the  accused  and  extreme  preju- 
dice against  his  opinions.     I  shall  not  mention  names. 

Were  the  professors  of  Union  Seminary  prejudiced  and 
the  professors  of  Princeton  Seminary  unprejudiced  ?  Was 
the  editor  of  the  Evangelist  prejudiced  and  the  editor  of 
the  Observer  unprejudiced  ?  Were  those  who  refused  to 
recognize  the  rights  of  the  General  Assembly  to  veto  the 
transfer  prejudiced  and  those  who  strove  with  all  their 
might  to  carry  the  veto  unprejudiced  ?  There  can  be  but 
one  answer  to  these  questions  by  unprejudiced  parties. 


THE  LOGIC  OF  THE  CASE  241 

The  law  of  the  Church  does  not  permit  any  such 
challenge  of  the  members  of  the  court.  It  is  assumed 
that  every  Presbyter  is  to  decide  in  the  fear  of  God,  in 
the  presence  of  Christ,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  that  the  judges  will  judge  righteous 
judgment.  The  reality  sadly  departs  from  the  ideal. 
But  it  is  not  equitable  to  consider  any  pretended  depart- 
ures on  the  one  side,  without  also  considering  alleged 
departures  on  the  other.  As  was  shown  in  the  argu- 
ment against  Entertaining  the  Appeal,  the  defendant  has 
been  compelled  to  argue  in  every  case  before  courts 
which  were  unfriendly  to  him,  and  which  have  again  and 
again  acted  against  his  interests  and  done  him  grave  in- 
justice and  wrong.  Doubtless  the  civil  courts  are  in 
advance  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  in  the  protection  of 
parties  against  prejudice  and  bias.  The  time  will  surely 
come  when  no  man  will  be  put  in  jeopardy  of  his 
ecclesiastical  life  in  a  court  which  is  unfriendly  to  him 
and  where  the  influence  of  parties  may  determine  the 
verdict  in  defiance  of  justice  and  right.  The  time  will 
surely  come  when  the  defendant  may  by  a  challenge 
rule  all  unfriendly  persons  and  hostile  partisans  from  the 
court  which  tries  him.  The  time  will  surely  come  when 
a  man  cannot  be  deprived  of  his  ecclesiastical  life  by  a 
mere  majority  of  such  members  as  now  constitute  the 
courts  of  the  Church.  But  as  things  now  are,  the  court 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  will  compare  quite 
favorably  with  any  other  courts  which  have  thus  far  had 
jurisdiction  of  the  case.  And  this  General  Assembly 
will  have  to  take  great  pains  to  purge  itself  of  any  sus- 
picion of  bias,  prejudice,  or  partisanship  ere  it  can  safely 
undertake  to  impute  such  things  to  the  members  of  the 
lower  court,  and  especially  to  such  honorable  names  as 
those  mentioned  in  the  specifications  of  this  Appeal. 


242       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

But  granting  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  there  has 
been  prejudice  on  the  part  of  the  thirteen  names  speci- 
fied by  the  Committee,  there  would  still  have  been  ac- 
quittal on  three  of  the  Charges  and  there  would  have 
been  conviction  only  by  a  majority  of  one  on  the  sixth 
Charge,  a  majority  of  two  on  the  first  Charge,  and  of 
seven  on  the  third  Charge.  But  the  General  Assembly 
could  not  sustain  an  objection  of  prejudice  against  the 
prosecution  without  giving  the  defendant  also  an  oppor- 
tunity to  show  prejudice  against  him.  If  the  three 
voters  were  ruled  out  who  voted  against  Dr.  Briggs  in 
Detroit,  he  would  still  have  been  acquitted  on  all  but 
the  third  Charge.  And  it  would  be  quite  easy  for  him 
to  show  that  many  more  than  thirteen  members  of  the 
court  had  so  committed  themselves  against  him  by  the 
public  expression  of  their  opinions,  that  they  had  an 
invincible  prejudice  in  the  case.  If  you  allow  the  prej- 
udice of  the  members  of  the  court  to  be  considered,  it 
would  be  quite  easy  to  show  that  Dr.  Briggs  would  have 
been  acquitted  by  much  greater  majorities  than  any  that 
he  received.  And  if  the  question  of  prejudice  is  to  be 
considered  in  connection  with  the  court  of  the  Presbytery, 
it  must  also  be  considered  in  the  court  of  the  Assembly, 
and  it  will  first  be  necessary  to  purge  this  court  by  chal- 
lenges of  the  parties  before  you  can  give  a  righteous  ver- 
dict. If  you  will  not  allow  a  challenge  in  this  court  you 
cannot  consistently  allow  it  in  the  Presbytery. 

No  valid  grounds  for  sustaining  the  Appeal  have  been 
presented  under  this  head.  The  only  thing  it  is 
lawful  for  you  to  do,  if  you  have  a  right  to  take  juris- 
diction of  the  case,  is  to  review  the  evidence  and  the 
arguments  of  parties  and  then  determine  whether  the 
verdict  was  in  accordance  with  the  evidence  or  not. 


THE   FIJ^AL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  243 

IV. — The  Final  Action  of  the  Presbytery. 

There  are  ten  specifications  of  error  under  three 
grounds  of  appeal  relating  to  the  final  action  of  the 
Presbytery.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  argument  against 
Entertaining  the  Appeal  that  this  final  action  was  not 
only  a  verdict  of  acquittal  with  its  reasons — which  alone 
can  be  regarded  as  a  final  judgment ;  but  also  action  of 
the  Presbytery  in  the  exercise  of  its  episcopal  and  legis- 
lative functions  against  which  an  appeal  is  unlawful. 
We  shall  find  that  these  ten  specifications  of  error  chiefly 
relate  to  such  things  and  that  they  are  irrelevant  to  the 
final  judgment  and  therefore  present  no  valid  grounds 
of  appeal. 

[The  most  of  these  were  referred  by  the  appellee  to 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  for  re- 
view. But  inasmuch  as  the  General  Assembly  sustained 
all  these  specifications,  I  shall  print  the  argument  against 
the  specifications  which  I  was  prevailed  upon  by  the 
Judicial  Committee  to  omit  in  order  to  save  the  time  of 
the  Assembly.] 

(i).  Attempting  to  relieve  the  Committee  of  further  re- 
sponsibility in  connection  with  the  case. 

Manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  conduct  of  the  case 
is  charged : 

"  In  this,  that  said  Presbytery  in  said  final  judgment,  by  at- 
tempting to  reheve  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  from  fur- 
ther responsibility  m  connection  with  this  case  appears  to  hinder 
and  prevent  the  attainment  of  the  ends  of  discipline,  apparently 
aiming  to  now  terminate  the  said  case,  and  thus  secure  the  same 
result  that  the  said  Presbytery  attempted  to  reach  on  November 
4th,  A.D.  iSgt,  by  voting  to  dismiss  the  said  case."     iW .  3.) 

But  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  was  not  taken  dur- 


244       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

ing  the  trial,  but  after  the  trial  had  been  completed  and 
the  vote  had  been  taken  and  the  verdict  of  acquittal 
declared.  Therefore  it  was  not  a  manifestation  of  prej- 
udice in  the  conduct  of  the  case.  Whether  the  Presby- 
tery had  a  right  to  relieve  the  committee  of  its  respon- 
sible task  or  not  depends  upon  the  decision  of  the 
question  of  the  original  party  by  the  Synod  of  New 
York.  If  the  Synod  should  decide  that  the  committee 
is  not  independent  of  Presbytery,  then  the  Presbyter>- 
ought  to  have  dismissed  them.  If  the  Synod  should 
decide  that  they  are  independent  of  the  Presbytery,  then 
the  Presbytery  could  not  have  relieved  them  of  their 
responsibility  in  the  case.  Whichever  way  the  Synod 
may  decide  does  not  afTect  the  rightfulness  of  the  ver- 
dict in  the  final  judgment ;  but  only  the  rightfulness  of 
an  appeal  to  the  superior  courts.  Even  if  the  Presby- 
tery committed  an  error  here,  that  is  no  ground  for  rep- 
resenting prejudice  in  the  trial  of  the  case,  and  there- 
fore it  gives  no  ground  for  a  reversal  of  the  verdict. 
This  specification  of  error  is  therefore  irrelevant  to  the 
Appeal. 

(2).  Fraternal  Discussion. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  manifestation  of  prejudice 
in  the  conduct  of  the  case : 

"  In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  in  said  final  judgment,  ex- 
presses '  an  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues  involved  in 
this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm  in- 
vestigation and  fraternal  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment 
and  process.'  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly directed  the  case  to  be  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  and 
thereby  expressed  a  no  less  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave 
issues  involved  should  be  determined  by  judicial  arraignment 
and  process."     (IV.  4.) 

This  conviction  of  the  Presbytery  is  an  expression  of 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE   PRESBYTERY  245 

the  opinion  of  the  Presbytery.  It  may  be  a  right 
opinion  or  it  may  be  a  wrong  opinion.  This  opinion 
was  not  expressed  during  the  trial,  but  subsequent  to 
the  trial.  There  is  no  evidence  that  this  opinion  influ- 
enced the  verdict.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  verdict  influenced  the  opinion.  It  is  not  for 
the  appellee  to  defend  that  opinion.  He  is  not  re- 
sponsible for  it.  Even  if  it  be  a  wrong  opinion,  its  error 
gives  no  ground  for  overturning  the  verdict.  The  com- 
missioners of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  should  defend 
this  opinion.  It  is  sufficient  for  the  appellee  to  defend 
the  final  judgment,  the  verdict  of  acquittal.  This  speci- 
fication should  not  be  sustained,  because  it  is  irrelevant 
to  the  final  judgment. 

(3).  Approval  of  the  views  of  the  Inaugural. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  "  mistake  or  injustice  in 
the  decision  ": 

"  In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
which  disclaims  to  be  an  expression  of  the  approval  of  the 
critical  or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  said  Inaugural 
Address,  is,  in  fact,  an  approval  of  said  critical  or  theological 
views  and  will  have  the  effect  of  encouraging  the  dissemination 
of  said  views  and  will  further  increase  the  present  disquietude  in 
the  said  Presbyterian  Church,"  etc.,  etc.    (V.  3,  9,  10,  11.) 

It  is  certainly  not  in  the  interest  of  the  appellee  to 
defend  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  against  these  allega- 
tions of  error.  These  statements  in  the  final  action  of 
the  Presbytery  do  an  injury  to  the  defendant  if  to  any- 
body. For  he  has  a  right  to  object  to  any  questioning 
of  the  rightfulness  of  his  views  by  the  body  which 
acquitted  him.  The  appellee  agrees  with  the  appellants 
that  the  Presbytery  did  what  they  ought  not  to  have 
done  when  they  made  this  deliverance.     Is  the  appellee 


246        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  suffer  for  it?  He  suffers  from  it  in  the  indirect 
disapproval  of  his  views  which  may  be  inferred  from  it. 
Is  it  equitable  that  this  error  of  the  Presbytery  should 
cost  him  the  risk  of  a  reversal  of  the  acquittal  ?  Look 
at  the  unfair  situation  in  which  the  appellee  is  placed. 
He  admits  that  in  this  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
committed  an  error.  If  it  is  relevant  to  the  verdict,  then 
you  should  sustain  it,  and  if  you  sustain  it  you  must 
sustain  the  Appeal  in  part.  If  you  sustain  it  in  part 
you  may  censure  the  Presbytery,  but  you  have  no 
ground  for  disturbing  their  verdict — for  the  error  was 
committed  against  the  defendant,  not  against  the  prose- 
cution. This  error  is  not  relevant  to  the  final  judgment. 
It  was  committed  by  the  Presbytery  in  the  exercise  of 
its  episcopal  functions,  not  in  the  exercise  of  its  judicial 
functions.  Let  the  commissioners  of  the  Presbytery 
defend  this  action,  the  appellee  cannot. 

But  this  much  the  court  should  consider,  that  the 
prosecution  endeavored  to  force  the  issue  upon  the 
Presbytery,  that  they  must  either  approve  the  views  of 
the  Inaugural,  or  condemn  them  by  a  verdict  of  guilty 
of  heresy. 

Mr.  McCook  said  in  his  argument : 

"  The  question  meets  each  one  of  us,  are  these  doctrines  of 
Professor  Briggs  contradictory  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  to 
the  Standards  of  our  Church  ?  In  approving  of  his  teaching,  and 
you  do  approve  of  it,  if  you  vote  for  an  acquittal,  you  who  have 
this  view  will  go  back  to  your  respective  congregations  with  the 
acknowledgment  that  your  view  of  the  Word  of  God  is  not  the 
view  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  himself. 
You  are  virtually  to  say  to  them  and  to  the  world  that  the  Bible 
is  not  any  longer  regarded  by  you  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  but  that  the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  also 
fountains  of  divine  authority ;  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  do 
not  convey  the  inspired  truth  ;  that  it  is  a  matter  of  tempera- 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  247 

ment  and  environment  which  way  of  access  to  God  men  may 
pursue ;  that  the  whole  race  of  man  is  redeemed,  will  be  justi- 
fied, sanctified,  glorified,  whether  they  be  elected  or  not,  whether 
they  be  heathen  or  Christian.  You  will  tell  them  that  a  man  who 
teaches  all  these  doctrines  should  still  remain  in  that  ministry 
that  has  been  honored  by  such  men  as  Edwards,  and  Smith,  and 
the  Hodges,  and  Adams.  And  you  will  collect  money  for  mis- 
sions, although  you  agree  that  most  men  will  be  saved  in  the 
Middle  State,  even  if  they  die  in  their  sins.  You  will  agree  with 
me  that  the  issue  is  of  vital  importance."     (pp.  47-48.) 

To  this  the  defendant  replied  in  his  Preliminary  Re- 
marks : 

"  What  members  of  this  court  can  be  misled  by  the  statement 
that  '  you  do  approve  of  the  defendant's  teaching  '  if  you  vote 
for  an  acquittal  '  ?  That  is  not  the  question  before  you.  The 
question  is,  whether  the  Charges  are  true  or  false,  whether  the 
defendant  has  taught  the  doctrines  alleged  in  the  Charges,  and 
whether,  if  he  has,  these  doctrines  conflict  with  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  Standards  named  in  the  Charges.  You  may  disap- 
prove of  his  teaching  altogether,  and  yet  you  can  do  no  other 
than  pronounce  him  innocent  so  far  as  any  case  that  the  prose- 
cution has  made  against  him." 

To  avoid  this  false  issue,  Dr,  Geo.  Alexander  offered 
a  resolution  on  December  28,  1892,  that 

"  The  Court  deems  it  proper  to  declare  that  a  vote  by  any 
member  of  this  Court  not  to  sustain  the  Charges  preferred 
against  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  does  not  denote  approval 
of  his  theological  or  critical  views,  or  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  have  been  advanced,  but  only  a  judgment  that  the  specific 
charges  have  not  been  established." 

This  resolution  was  discussed  and  then  laid  on  the 
table  until  after  the  vote  on  the  Charges  and  Specifica- 
tions had  been  taken.  Then  it  was  taken  from  the  table 
and  referred  to  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  the 
final  action  of  the  Presbytery. 

If  the  resolution  had  been  adopted  prior  to  the  taking 


248        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

of  the  vote,  then  it  might  have  been  urged  that  the  reso- 
lution influenced  the  vote.  But  in  fact  the  resolution 
was  not  adopted  before  the  taking  of  the  vote,  or  after 
taking  the  vote,  but  was  referred  to  a  committee,  who 
substituted  for  it  in  their  report  the  following  clause : 
"  Without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  In- 
augural Address." 

Therefore  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  resolution 
influenced  the  verdict.  It  must  be  shown  that  the  ver- 
dict would  have  been  reversed  by  the  Presbytery  if  this 
resolution  had  not  been  offered,  or  else  you  cannot  regard 
this  resolution  as  a  sufificient  reason  to  justify  you  in 
reversing  the  verdict.  This  has  not  been  shown.  It 
cannot  be  shown. 

The  Presbytery  did  wrong,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
defendant,  in  that  this  resolution  and  its  substitute  in 
the  final  action  of  the  Presbytery  is  so  framed  that  it 
seems  to  imply  a  disapproval  of  the  views  of  the  Inau- 
gural. The  Presbytery  should  have  so  framed  its 
opinion  as  not  to  leave  it  open  to  this  interpretation. 
The  Presbytery  was  not  called  upon  in  the  trial  to  say 
whether  they  approved  the  views  of  the  defendant  or 
disapproved  them.  The  Presbytery  was  called  upon  to  try 
them  by  the  constitution  and  to  determine  whether  these 
views  were  contra-confessional,  or  whether  they  "struck 
at  the  vitals  of  religion,"  whether  they  were  heretical. 
The  Presbytery  determined  that  these  views  were  not 
contra-confessional.  It  did  more ;  it  expressly  gave 
its  opinion  that  they  were  extra-confessional ;  "  the  Pres- 
bytery does  not  find  that  he  transgressed  the  limits  of 
liberty  allowed  under  our  constitution  to  scholarship  and 
opinion."  Having  determined  that  the  views  were  thus 
within  the  limits  of  liberty — that  is,  were  extra-confes- 
sional and  extra-judicial — it  had  no  authority  as  a  court 


THE   FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE   PRESBYTERY  249 

to  give  any  judgment  whatever  upon  them,  whether  of 
approval  or  disapproval. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Presbytery  meant  by  the  clause 
to  which  exception  is  taken,  nothing  more  than  a  simple 
reservation  of  opinion  as  to  the  views  stated  in  the  In- 
augural Address.  If  that  was  its  meaning,  the  Presby- 
tery certainly  had  the  right  to  express  such  a  reservation. 
It  was  within  its  episcopal  jurisdiction  so  to  do.  No 
wrong  has  been  done  the  prosecution  by  this  reservation 
of  opinion.  They  failed  in  convincing  the  Presbytery 
that  the  defendant  was  guilty.  They  failed  in  forcing 
the  Presbytery  to  disapprove  the  views  of  the  defendant. 

Let  me  say  a  single  word  here,  Mr.  Moderator  and 
brethren.  You  are  in  a  very  delicate  position,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  before  the  Christian  world.  You  will  have 
to  take  great  care  lest  in  condemning  the  accused  you 
approve  the  theological  views  of  these  theologians  who 
are  prosecuting  him.  For  I  will  undertake  to  bring  out 
an  enormous  catalogue  of  heresies  in  the  arguments 
which  they  have  presented  to  these  courts.  Unless  you 
guard  yourselves,  in  your  final  decision,  against  any 
approval  of  these  arguments,  you  will  put  yourselves  in 
a  very  unfortunate  position,  to  justify  your  action  be- 
fore the  Christian  world. 

(4).  Effort  to  Convict  the  Accused  by  Inference. 

It  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  there  was  mis- 
take or  injustice  in  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery, 

"  In  this,  that  said  final  judgment  is  misleading  and 
unjust,  because  it  evidently  but  erroneously  aims  to  set 
forth  that  there  has  been  an  effort  to  convict  the  accused 
by  inference  or  implication."     (V.  8.) 

But  this  allegation  does  not  accord  with  the  facts  of 
the  case.     The  Presbyter^'  in  its  final  action  states  that : 


250       ARGUMENT  AGx^INST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

"  The  Presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established 
principles  of  our  polity  '  that  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  by  inference  or  implication.'  " 

This  is  a  statement  of  a  principle  of  law  which  gov- 
erned their  own  action.  It  makes  no  imputation  upon 
the  action  or  the  motives  of  the  prosecution.  The  Pres- 
bytery makes  no  allegation  against  them  as  to  inferences 
or  implications.  But  the  defendant  does  make  such  alle- 
gations, and  these  are  sustained  by  their  whole  conduct 
of  the  case.  The  prosecution  depend  absolutely  and 
alone  upon  false  inferences  and  invalid  implications  in 
their  arguments.  So  far  did  they  go  in  such  offensive 
and  unrighteous  procedure  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
defendant  and  of  many  onlookers  they  ought  to  have 
received  the  censure  of  the  Presbytery.  They  have 
earned  the  censure  of  the  General  Assembly  and  of  all 
honorable  men  by  their  persistent  efforts  to  force  their 
inferences  and  implications  upon  the  defendant  and  upon 
the  Presbytery. 

The  attention  of  the  General  Assembly  is  called  to 
two  gross  examples  of  such  imputations  which  were  ex- 
posed to  the  Presbytery  by  the  defendant : 

"  I  shall  not  take  the  time  of  the  judicatory  by  calling  attention 
to  the  insinuations  and  statements  of  larger  errors  which  per- 
vade the  argument  of  Mr.  McCook,  but  your  attention  is  called 
to  the  closing  section  of  that  argument,  in  which  an  attempt  is 
made  to  explain  all  the  errors  imputed  to  the  defendant  by  the 
root  error  of  Naturalism — which  it  is  said  '  in  the  hands  of  a  more 
logical  writer  than  Professor  Briggs  would  be  pushed  to  far  more 
radical  conclusions  ....  and  will  soon  leave  you  about  as 
much  exclusiveness  as  Christians,  in  having  the  oracles  of  God, 
as  Mahometans  or  Brahmins  have.'  "    (p.  46.) 

"  If  the  prosecution  are  serious  in  this  statement  of  the  case, 
they  are  convicted  out  of  their  own  mouth  of  gross  neglect  of 
duty.     If  they  have  here  struck  at  the  root  of  all  the  errors  of 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  251 

Dr.  Briggs,  they  certainly  ought  to  have  put  it  in  a  Charge.  If 
they  made  a  mistake  in  the  formulation  of  the  original  Charges, 
why  did  they  not  confess  their  mistake,  abandon  the  old  case, 
and  bring  in  new  Charges  under  a  new  case  ?  That  would  have 
been  honest,  that  would  have  been  manly,  that  would  have  been 
welcomed  by  the  defendant  and  all  honorable  men.  But  to 
bring  such  a  serious  accusation  into  an  argument  to  prove  other 
Charges,  which  have  been  recognized  as  sufficient  for  probation, 
is  to  wrong  the  defendant  and  to  presume  upon  the  patience  and 
indulgence  of  the  court.  This  new  charge  is  utterly  and  abso- 
lutely false.  It  was  forged  in  the  brain  of  its  author.  It  was  in- 
vented in  a  diseased  mind.  You  have  no  right  as  a  court  to 
consider  it.  The  laws  of  evidence  in  all  courts,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical, require  you  to  blot  out  from  the  argument  any  and 
every  reference  to  other  imputed  errors  than  those  alleged  in 
the  Charges.  These  and  these  aKme  the  prosecution  were  en- 
titled to  prove."     ( T/ie  Defence,  pp.  x-xi.) 

The  other  example  was  in  the  argument  of  Dr. 
Lampe. 

"  {b)  When  Dr.  Lampe  argues  that  I  teach  the  errancy  of 
Jesus,  he  argues  on  a  much  more  serious  matter  than  any  con- 
tained in  the  Charges,  and  in  such  a  way  which  shows  that  he 
knows  but  little  of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  our 
adorable  Saviour.  I  am  not  surprised  that  a  man  who  can  speak 
of  the  hours  of  prayer  and  religious  meditation,  as  lonely  hours, 
should  know  so  little  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  we  are  apart  from 
the  world  and  present  with  Jesus  we  have  companionsljiip  which 
IS  richer  and  more  glorious  than  that  of  all  the  world  beside. 
My  argument  was  simply  this,  that  Jesus  never  said  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  that  Isaiah  wrote  all  of  the  book  which 
bears  his  name ;  and  that  He  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all  the 
errors  of  His  contemporaries.  This  argument  the  prosecution 
did  not  attempt  to  rebut,  they  did  not  refer  to  it ;  but,  in  place 
of  rebuttal,  charge  me  with  a  more  serious  error  than  anything 
contained  in  the  Charge.  How  can  this  court  look  upon  such 
conduct  with  any  degree  of  toleration  } 

"  (c)  Almost  the  entire  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  is  directed 
against  the  views  of  rationalistic  critics,  with  the  implication 


252       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

that  I  am  responsible  for  their  opinions.  The  prosecution  had 
in  their  hands  my  printed  argument  on  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Isaiah.  They  have  not  paid  the 
slightest  attention  to  anything  in  my  argument.  As  I  stated  at 
the  close  of  my  argument  on  the  Pentateuch,  I  defend  the  his- 
toricity of  the  Pentateuch  no  less  than  the  prosecution  ;  and  I 
defend  it  on  better  grounds  and  with  far  greater  hopes  of  success 
when  I  recognize  parallel  narratives  of  the  same  event  in  the 
history  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  court  should  recog- 
nize all  this  irrelevant  argument  and  rule  it  out  of  court,  and 
confine  themselves  to  the  specific  matters  contained  in  Charges 
IV,  and  v.,  and  determine  whether  a  man  who  denies  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  asserts  that  Isaiah  did 
not  write  half  the  book  which  bears  his  name,  has  taken  a  con- 
tra-confessional  position  and  is  thereby  ruled  out  from  the  Presby- 
terian Church. 

"  (3)  I  have  taken  exception  to  much  the  greater  portion  of 
the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe,  as  in  no  sense  a  rebuttal,  but  a  new 
case  against  me.  It  is  impracticable  for  me  to  go  over  all  the 
argument  at  this  time.  Let  me  take  one  glaring  specimen.  He 
puts  in  my  mouth  (p.  16)  the  statement:  'Newman  could  not 
find  certainty  and  God  in  the  Bible  striving  never  so  hard,  but 
found  a  place  among  the  faithful  through  the  institutions  of  the 
Church.  Martineau  could  not  find  God  in  the  Bible  but  did 
find  Him  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.'  This  is  a  misrepresenta- 
tion. The  passages  from  the  Inaugural  referred  to  (pp.  25,  27) 
say  no  such  thing.  They  say,  '  Martineau  could  not  find  divine 
authority  in  the  Church,  or  the  Bible  ;  but  did  find  God  en- 
throned in  his  own  soul '  (p.  27).  '  Newman,  who  could  not 
reach  certainty,  striving  never  so  hard,  through  the  Bible  or  the 
Reason,  but  who  did  find  divine  authority  in  the  institutions  of 
the  Church  '  (p.  25). 

"  I  did  not  say  that  Newman  and  Martineau  did  not  find  God 
in  the  Bible.  That  statement  the  prosecution,  and  they  alone, 
are  responsible  for.  To  find  God  is  one  thing,  to  find  divine 
authority  in  that  in  which  we  find  God,  is  another  and  a  different 
thing.  The  difficulty  with  the  prosecution  is  that  they  seem  in- 
capable of  making  distinctions  and  seeing  differences  in  the 
fields  of  theology  which  are  so  unfamiliar  to  them."  (  The  De- 
fence, pp.  1 90- 1 9 1.) 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  c>53 

The  Presbytery  simply  ignored  this  conduct  of  the 
prosecution.  It  stated  that  it  was  influenced  by  the 
principle  which  is  quoted  from  the  decision  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  "  that  no  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of 
heresy  by  inference  or  implication."  If  that  statement 
is  unjust  to  the  committee,  it  is  simply  because  it  calls 
their  attention  to  a  principle  which  convicts  them  at  the 
bar  of  their  own  consciences  as  guilty  of  unrighteous- 
ness and  wrong.  It  is  true  that  the  Presbytery  states 
that  "  there  are  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which 
men  of  good  character  may  differ,"  but  where  is  there 
anything  misleading  or  unjust  in  that  statement  ?  It  is 
an  invalid  inference  that  "  this  seems  to  deny  and  make 
light  of  the  well-established  principle  of  our  polity,  that 
there  are  also  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which 
men  of  good  character  should  not  differ."  There  is  no 
inconsistency  in  these  statements  to  any  clear  mind. 
The  Presbytery  decided  that  the  views  challenged  in  the 
Inaugural  belonged  to  the  former  class.  Possibly  the 
Presbytery  erred  in  their  classification  of  the  views  of 
the  defendant — but  it  did  not  err  in  the  distinction  it 
made  between  the  two  classes  of  truths  and  forms. 
Therefore  this  specification  of  error  is  invalid.  The 
Presbytery  were  not  misleading  and  unjust  in  these 
statements.  The  Presbytery  made  the  distinctions 
which  the  law  of  the  Church  required  them  to  make  in 
connection  with  a  final  judgment  of  Charges  for  heresy. 

(5).    TJie  Final  Judgvient  Vague. 

It  is  represented  by  the  appellants  that  there  was 
"  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision  : 

"  In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  is  vague  and 
uncertain." 

Vagueness  is  alleged  in  several  particuldrs. 


254r       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

{a)  It  is  true  that  the  Presbytery  stated  that  it  gave 
"due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  explanation  of  the 
language  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address,  accepting  his 
frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpretation  which  has 
been  put  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and  illustrations." 
It  is  alleged  that  these  explanations,  phrases,  and  illus- 
trations should  have  been  specified.  There  is  no  ground 
in  law  for  such  a  specification.  It  was  not  necessary  nor 
was  it  proper  for  the  Presbytery  to  specify  all  those  ex- 
planations, phrases,  and  illustrations.  To  do  so  would 
be  to  review  a  considerable  portion  of  the  argument  for 
the  defence.  Such  a  review  is  unprecedented  in  final 
judgments,  (b)  It  is  alleged  that  it  should  have  been 
specified  "  whether  such  explanations  or  disclaimers  re- 
late to  the  portions  of  the  said  Inaugural  Address  upon 
which  the  Charges  and  Specifications  are  based."  But 
such  a  specification  was  uncalled  for.  It  is  to  be  assumed 
that  the  court  would  do  its  duty  and  limit  its  consider- 
ation to  the  Charges  and  Specifications.  The  prosecu- 
tion present  no  evidence  that  the  court  did  otherwise. 

{c)  It  is  alleged  that  the  statement  of  the  Presbytery 
that  the  defendant  "  has  not  transgressed  the  limits  of 
liberty  allowed  under  our  constitution  to  scholarship  and 
opinion  "  is  vague  and  uncertain.  This  objection  is  in- 
valid and  uncandid,  for  the  Presbytery  was  called  upon 
to  determine  six  Charges  and  their  Specifications.  It 
gave  as  its  judgment  that  the  opinions  of  the  defendant 
were  not  heretical  and  acquitted  him  of  the  charges 
alleged  against  him.  It  determined  that  the  opinions  of 
the  defendant  so  far  as  they  were  challenged  in  these 
Charges  and  their  Specifications  were  within  the  limits  of 
liberty.  There  is  nothing  vague  or  uncertain  in  that.  If 
there  be  any  vagueness  or  uncertainty,  it  is  in  the 
Charges  and  Specifications  prepared  by  the  prosecution. 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  255 

They  cannot  ask  that  the  Presbytery  should  make  any 
other  lines  of  discrimination  than  the  lines  drawn  by  the 
Charges.  If  their  Charges  and  Specifications  were  vague, 
they  cannot  impute  vagueness  to  the  Presbytery,  when 
on  finding  the  Charges  unproven,  it  says  that  the  views 
charged  as  heretical  have  not  transgressed  the  limits  of 
liberty. 

{d)  It  is  alleged  that  "  the  Presbytery  confounds  unjus- 
tifiable controversy  with  useful  and  constitutional  disci- 
pline "  But  there  is  no  ground  for  this  allegation. 
There  are  evidently  two  classes  of  opinions,  one  class 
heretical  which  demands  useful  and  constitutional  disci- 
pline, another  class  within  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed 
under  our  constitution  to  scholarship  and  opinion.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery  to  determine  in  view  of 
the  Charges,  to  which  of  these  classes  the  challenged 
opinions  of  Dr  Briggs  belonged.  The  Presbytery  may 
have  made  a  wrong  classification  of  the  views  of  Dr. 
Briggs — but  there  is  no  vagueness  in  the  distinction  of 
the  two  classes  and  there  is  no  other  vagueness  in  the 
classification  than  such  as  is  found  in  the  Charges  them- 
selves for  which  the  prosecution  is  responsible. 

(6).  Sustain  in  Part. 

It  is  alleged  that  there  was  irregularity  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York : 

"  In  this,  that  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  said  Charges 
andSpecifications,  the  said  Presbytery  refused  to  permit  any  of 
the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  to  vote,  to  '  Sustain  in  part," 
contrary  to  the  precedents  and  practice  of  the  judicial  procedure 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 
(I.  II.) 

The  Presbytery  on  motion  of  Dr.  Thompson  adopted 
a  rule  for  taking  the  vote.    This  rule  was  adapted  to  the 


256      ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

structure  of  the  Charges  and  Specifications.  The  Charges 
were  so  constructed  that  they  contained  several  differ- 
ent Charges.  The  Presbytery,  in  accordance  with  the 
PreHminary  Objection  of  the  defendant,  directed  that 
these  Charges  should  be  itemized  in  order  to  save  the 
time  required  to  reconstruct  them,  in  accordance  with 
the  suggestion  of  the  defendant.  The  Charges  had  no 
proper  Specifications.  The  Specifications  were  merely 
extracts  from  the  Inaugural,  nothing  more.  The  vote 
to  sustain  in  part  has  to  do  with  the  relation  of  the  spec- 
ifications to  the  Charges.  If  a  Charge  has  several  spec- 
ifications, one  or  more  of  them  may  be  sustained,  and 
so  the  Charge  may  be  sustained  in  part. 

The  present  Appeal  is  so  constructed  that  votes  to 
sustain  in  part  are  possible  under  each  and  every  ground 
of  appeal.  But  the  Charges  were  so  constructed  that  a 
vote  to  sustain  in  part  was  impracticable.  It  would  only 
have  taken  time  and  tended  to  confusion  in  the  vote. 
No  exception  was  taken  by  the  prosecution  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  Presbytery  to  take  the  vote  in  the  way  de 
cided  upon.  It  was  seen  after  careful  deliberation  that 
no  injustice  would  be  done,  and  that  the  method  decided 
upon  by  the  Presbytery  would  be  most  equitable. 

Ihis  will  be  clear  to  any  one  who  examines  the 
Charges  and  Specifications  and  studies  the  vote.  There 
was  no  place  for  votes  to  sustain  in  part.  Four  of 
the  Charges  had  each  one  specification  only.  There 
can  be  no  vote  to  sustain  in  part  where  there  is  but 
one  specification.  The  other  two  Charges  had  two 
specifications  each.  Here  it  was  theoretically  possible 
for  a  vote  to  sustain  in  part  if  the  specifications  had 
been  so  constructed  as  to  raise  different  issues  ;  but  they 
were  not  so  constructed  and  therefore  such  a  vote  was 
not  practicable.     This  becomes  evident  in  the  debate. 


THE  FINAL  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  257 

It  is  clear  that  the  Presbytery  took  this  view  of  it,  for 
the  vote  is  identical  under  the  two  specifications  of 
Charge  II.  Under  Charge  L  there  was  a  single  voter 
out  of  128  who  changed  his  vote  on  the  second  specifica- 
tion. If  now  any  one  should  say  that  there  was  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  different  result  under  Charges  I.  and  II.  and 
that  therefore  the  usual  method  should  have  been  fol- 
lowed and  a  vote  to  sustain  in  part  permitted,  let  him 
consider  that  if  this  be  so,  the  irregularity  did  no  injus- 
tice in  this  case ;  for  according  to  the  vote  on  the  speci- 
fications there  could  have  been  only  a  single  vote  to  sus- 
tain in  part,  and  that  one  on  Charge  I.  only ;  and  if  any 
injury  was  done,  it  was  not  done  to  the  prosecution,  but 
to  the  defendant,  because  the  minister  who  voted  to 
sustain  the  second  specification  of  Charge  I.  and  not  to 
sustain  the  first  specification,  voted  to  sustain  the  Charge  ; 
so  that  the  only  difference  in  the  result  would  have  been 
that  one  voter  would  have  voted  on  the  first  Charge  to 
sustain  in  part,  instead  of  to  sustain.  Certainly  the 
prosecution  have  no  ground  for  appeal  in  this  matter. 

We  have  gone  pati-ently  through  all  these  specifica- 
tions of  objection  and  grounds  of  appeal  against  the  ver- 
dict of  the  Presbytery  acquitting  Dr.  Briggs  of  the  six 
Charges  of  heresy  alleged  against  him.  It  seems  as  if 
we  have  been  passing  through  a  fog  bank.  The  34  spec- 
ifications seemed  banked  up  in  formidable  array — but 
we  went  straight  forward — we  pushed  against  them,  they 
yielded  to  the  least  touch,  they  shrank  back  from  the 
merest  breath,  they  are  airy  nothings,  they  have  left 
nothing  but  an  unpleasant  and  disagreeable  sensation 
which  we  trust  will  soon  pass  away  now  that  we  have 
left  them  behind. 

These  appellants  have  no  case.     They  may  be  dis- 


258       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

appointed  at  their  failure  to  convict  the  accused.  But 
you  cannot  legally  sustain  their  Appeal.  All  its  grounds 
are  invalid.  The  most  of  them  are  trivial.  Many  of 
them  are  childish.  But  if  they  were  all  of  them  valid, 
what  could  you  say  other  than  this : — the  Presbytery 
ought  tc  have  served  upon  the  defendant  the  two 
Charges  which  were  thrown  out  and  to  have  allowed  the 
prosecution  to  present  their  evidence  to  sustain  them ; 
the  Presbytery  ought  not  to  have  itemized  the  Charges, 
or  to  have  changed  them  in  any  way ;  the  Presbytery 
ought  to  have  required  the  defendant  to  take  oath  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  his  own  writings,  and  to  have  read 
all  his  evidence  before  the  court ;  the  Presbytery  ought 
not  to  have  said  any  of  those  things  in  their  final  judg- 
ment against  which  the  prosecution  object ;  they  ought 
to  have  limited  themselves  to  the  verdict  with  its  rea- 
sons ;  they  ought  to  have  allowed  that  unique  voter  to 
vote  to  sustain  in  part  instead  of  to  sustain.  In  all  these 
respects  the  Presbytery  did  wrong  and  are  deserving  of 
censure  for  these  errors,  and  we  do  hereby  reverse  all 
these  actions.  Granted  that  all  these  actions  were  erro- 
neous, the  verdict  will  still  remain  unassailable.  The 
only  ground  given  on  which  you  can  change  the  verdict, 
is  by  ruling  out  the  thirteen  voters  who  are  alleged  by 
the  prosecution  to  have  been  influenced  by  prejudice  in 
favor  of  the  accused.  You  then  have  seriously  to  con- 
sider (i)  whether  it  is  lawful  to  condemn  these  eminent 
ministers  and  laymen  as  guilty  of  prejudice,  without  a 
trial ;  (2)  whether  you  can  entertain  charges  of  prejudice 
against  those  who  voted  in  favor  of  the  accused,  when 
you  refuse  to  entertain  charges  of  prejudice  against 
tifose  who  voted  against  him  ;  (3)  whether  you  can  rule 
out  prejudiced  parties  from  the  lower  court,  unless  you 
have  already  ruled  them  out  from  the  superior  court. 


THE  REASON  259 

Thus  the  only  ground  for  a  reversal  sinks  by  its  own 
weight  in  the  marsh  of  its  own  iniquity,  and  disappears 
in  the  mud  of  its  own  false  pretensions. 

V. — The  Doctrines  of  the  Appellee. 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  propose,  after  having  devoted 
so  much  time  to  disproving  the  case  as  presented  by  the 
appellants,  to  state  to  you  as  frankly  as  I  can,  what  are 
those  things  which  I  veritably  believe  and  teach.  In 
order  to  do  this  I  shall  use  for  the  most  part  my 
Defence  and  the  writings  put  in  evidence  in  the  case. 

Tlie  Reason. 

The  first  charge  against  me,  stripped  of  all  that  I  deny 
as  relevant,  is  that  I  make  the  Reason  a  great  fountain 
of  Divine  authority.  Let  me  make  a  statement  here, 
having  reference  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe.  It 
seems  to  me  that  Dr.  Lampe  and  most  of  my  critics 
make  the  serious  mistake  of  confounding  the  original 
source  of  all  authority  with  the  fountain  of  authority. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  prosecution  make  the  Bible  the 
infallible  source  of  authority,  instead  of  recognizing 
that  God  is  speaking  through  the  Bible,  as  I  do ;  and 
therefore  they  do  not  understand  my  position  when  I 
say  that  the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  fountains  of 
divine  authority. 

I  do  not  mean  that  there  is  any  original  divine  au- 
thority in  the  human  Reason,  or  that  there  is  any  origi- 
nal divine  authority  in  the  Christian  Church,  but  simply 
that  they  are  channels,  fountains,  media,  through  which 
God's  Holy  Spirit  speaks  to  men. 

Now,  I  wish,  in  the  consideration  of  the  Reason  as  a 
fountain  of  divine  authority,  to  call  upon  my  friend,  Dr. 
Brown,   in    order   to   save   my  strength,  to  read  some 


260       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

passages,  as  a  part  of  my  argument,  from  my  Defence 
before  the  Presbytery  on  that  point. 
Dr.  Brown  read  as  follows : 

"  We  shall  now  show  that  the  Confession  distinctly  recognizes 
the  Reason  as  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  prose- 
cution shut  their  eyes  to  seven  chapters  of  the  Confession  (lo, 
13,  14,  16,  18,  20,  26)  when  they  represent  that  my  doctrine  of  the 
Reason  is  erroneous.  In  their  original  Charges  they  state  that 
I  'strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion  '  in  teaching  that  the  Reason  is 
a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  I  do,  indeed,  'strike  at  the 
vitals  of  religion,'  but  in  a  sense  quite  different  from  that  in  their 
minds,  for  this  doctrine  so  strikes  at  the  vitals  of  religion  that 
there  can  be  no  vital  religion  without  it.  It  does  indeed  enter 
into  the  very  life  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  strikes  at 
the  barriers  of  dead  orthodoxy  and  barren  ecclesiasticism,  and 
strikes  through  them  to  the  fountain  head  of  Christian  life. 

"  {a)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  EfTectual  Calling  unless 
the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority."  {The  De- 
fence, p.  47.) 

"  In  effectual  calling  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  upon  the  soul  of 
man.  The  call  is  by  the  divine  word  and  the  divine  Spirit ; 
always  by  the  divine  Spirit,  but  not  always  by  the  divine  word ; 
but  whether  the  divine  word  is  used  or  not,  in  any  case  it  is 
the  divine  Spirit  who  enlightens  the  mind  to  understand  the 
things  of  God ;  gives  a  new  heart  of  flesh  for  the  old  heart  of 
stone;  renews  the  will,  determining  it  by  almighty  power  to 
that  which  is  good.  All  these  operations  of  the  divine  Spirit 
change  the  mind,  the  heart,  the  will,  the  constituent  parts  of  the 
inner  man.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  the  divine  Spirit  en- 
lightens the  mind  without  using  the  Reason  ?  Can  the  heart  be 
transformed  from  a  hard  stone  to  sensitive  flesh  without  usmg 
the  Religious  Feeling?  Can  the  will  be  determined  to  that 
which  is  good  without  using  the  Conscience.''  If  mind,  heart, 
and  will  are  changed  in  effectual  calling,  then  Reason,  Religious 
Feeling,  and  Conscience  are  quickened  with  the  pulsations  of  the 
divine  Spirit  and  animated  with  new  life.  When  the  mind  is 
savingly  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  how  can  this  be  other- 
wise than  by  the  Spirit  of  God  speaking  with  divine  authority 


THE  REASON  261 

through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  so  that  the  mind  understands 
the  things  of  God  on  the  authority  of  God  ?  When  the  will  is  re- 
newed and  determined  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  that  which  is  good, 
how  otherwise  can  it  be  determined  than  by  a  divine  authority 
in  the  conscience  overcoming  every  doubt  as  to  the  good,  and 
every  disinclination  to  the  good  ? 

"  In  effectual  calling,  the  calling  is  effectual  simply  because  the 
Holy  Spirit  enters  the  human  Reason  with  divine  energy  to 
work  through  the  Reason  effectually  in  all  the  avenues  of  human 
nature.  By  effectual  calling  the  redeemed  enter  into  a  new 
world  in  which  divine  authority  flows  through  the  fountain  of 
the  Reason  to  govern  and  enrich  all  their  lives. 

"  (i>)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Sanctification  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority."     (p.  48.) 

"Sanctification  is  accomplished  by  Christ's  word  and  Spirit 
dwelling  in  them — not  by  Christ's  word  alone,  but  also  by  the 
indwelling  Spirit ;  by  the  word  and  Spirit  usually  in  Christian 
lands;  but  by  the  Spirit  always  in  every  land  and  in  every  re- 
deemed person.  By  the  word  dwelling  in  us  we  understand  not 
only  Holy  Scripture  engraved  on  the  memory,  but  appropriated 
by  the  soul  and  transformed  into  principles  of  holy  living  and 
doing.  How  then  shall  we  understand  the  indwelling  Spirit  ? 
Where  does  the  Holy  Spirit  dwell  if  not  at  the  central  point 
of  our  human  nature,  and  where  else  can  that  be  for  any  intelli- 
gent person  than  in  the  Reason,  where  the  conscience  is  taught 
to  speak  the  categorical  imperative  which  is  now  truly  a  word 
divine,  where  the  religious  feeling  is  stimulated  to  holy  im- 
pulses which  are  as  the  breath  of  God  to  men  ;  where  the  Rea- 
son is  informed  with  holy  thoughts  which  are  truth  from 
heaven;  and  where  the  divine  presence  fills  the  soul  with  the 
assurance  of  a  divine  authority  which  is  no  bondage,  but  peace 
and  joy?  There  can  be  no  sanctification  unless  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwell  in  the  Reason,  and  so  by  divine  authority  govern  the 
life  and  conduct."     (p.  49.) 


"  (c)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Saving  Faith  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority."     (p.  50.) 


"  If  faith  is  wrought  in  our  hearts  by  the  divine   Spirit,  can 


262       AKGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING    THE  APPEAL 

it  be  wrought  in  any  other  way  than  through  the  Reason  ?  Can 
there  be  any  faith  in  which  the  conscience,  the  religious  feeling, 
and  the  Reason  do  not  share  ?"     (p.  51.) 

"  Can  there  be  any  '  receiving  and  resting  upon  Christ '  if 
the  Reason  exclude  Christ,  if  the  conscience  disapprove  of 
Christ,  if  the  religious  feeling  shrink  from  Christ?  It  is  because 
the  Holy  Spirit  lights  up  the  chambers  of  the  soul,  it  is  because 
Jesus  Christ  shines  in  our  hearts  with  light  divine  that  we  see 
Him  and  know  our  Saviour,  as  we  see  and  know  the  sun  when 
he  rises  at  the  break  of  day.  It  is  through  the  effusion  of  divine 
energy,  the  infusion  of  divine  life,  the  suffusion  of  divine  light, 
that  sinful  man  is  born  of  God,  to  live  in  the  Spirit  and  know 
his  Saviour."     (p.  51.) 


"  {d)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Good  Works  well  pleas- 
ing to  God,  unless  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  au- 
thority."    (p.  52.) 


"  In  order  to  do  good  works  it  is,  therefore,  necessary  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  '  work  in  the  believer  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure.'  If  the  Holy  Spirit  work  in  a  man,  how 
else  shall  He  work  than  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason.''  The  Holy 
Spirit  not  only  works  in  the  man,  but  He  dwells  in  him  while 
working,  in  his  innermost  soul.  And  where  can  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwell  within  us  save  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  } 


"  {^)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Assurance  of  Grace, 
unless  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority. 
(P-  52.) 

"  If  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Assurance  of  Grace  were 
really  a  part  of  the  living  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  no 
one  could  accuse  me  of  heresy  for  teaching  that  the  Reason 
is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  for  let  any  one  consider 
what  is  involved  in  this  doctrine.  It  is  the  assurance  of  a  be- 
liever, the  making  him  certain  that  he  is  a  child  of  God.  This 
comes  by  inward  evidence  within  the  soul  of  man,  not  merely 
by  outward  evidence  from  Bible  or  Church.  It  is  the  Holy 
Spirit  witnessing  with  our  spirits — Spirit  with  spirit — not  simply 


THE  REASON  263 

the  Holy  Spirit  witnessing  through  Holy  Scripture  and  Holy 
Sacrament.  It  is  the  direct  and  immediate  contact  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  with  the  spirit  of  the  believer— a  contact  which  gives  cer- 
tainty. What  can  give  certainty  except  divine  evidence?  What 
can  assure  our  souls  but  divine  authority  ?  The  Confession  dis- 
tinctly teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  present  to  the  spirit  of 
man  with  divine  authority,  and  that  presence  is  within  the  man, 
in  his  inmost  being,  his  higher  spiritual  nature.  Where  is  that 
presence,  if  not  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  ? 

"(/)  There  can  be  no  true  Liberty  of  Conscience  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,     (p.  53.) 


"  God  is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience.  The  conscience  has  no 
other  Lord.  The  conscience  is  especially  the  place  where  God 
is  Lord  and  through  which  He  exercises  His  divine  authority. 
Liberty  of  conscience  is  essential  to  true  religious  life  and 
activity.  No  •  implicit  faith  '  is  required.  No  blind  obedience 
is  lawful.  The  Christian  conscience  refuses  to  close  its  eyes.  It 
ever  looks  upward  for  authority  divine  to  enjoy  the  vision  of 
God.  Conscience  refuses  bondage;  it  is  the  free-born  daughter 
of  God.  True  religion  appeals  to  the  conscience,  the  faithful 
monitor  ot  God  within  the  breast.  Let  the  conscience  rule  the 
man  and  God  will  rule  him.  Bind  him  to  blind  obedience,  any 
external  authority  whatever,  whether  church  or  state,  whether 
system  of  dogma  or  letter  of  Scripture,  and  you  obstruct  the 
dominion  of  God  in  the  man.  The  conscience  must  remain  free 
in  order  to  healthful  religious  life.  The  Lord  of  the  conscience 
must  speak  with  divine  authority  through  the  conscience  in 
order  that  the  life  may  be  a  holy  life.  If  the  Lord  of  glory  in- 
habit the  conscience,  make  it  His  throne  within  the  man,  all  its 
monitions  will  be  divine.  This  is  the  ideal  of  liberty  of  con- 
science which  every  Christian  should  seek.  You  shatter  this 
ideal  for  yourselves,  if  you  say  it  is  heresy  to  teach  that  the 
Reason— explaining  Reason  as  the  conscience — is  a  great  foun- 
tain of  divine  authority. 

"  ig)  There  can  be  no  real  communion  with  Christ,  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority."  (p.  54-) 

"  The  bond  between  the  saints  is  a  bond  of  faith  tied  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.     The  Church  and  the  Bible  often  mediate  between 


264       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

the  appropriating  faith  and  the  bestowing  Holy  Spirit ;  but  they 
do  not  take  the  place  of  either  the  Holy  Spirit  or  of  faith.  Faith 
lays  hold  of  Christ,  the  direct  object  of  the  soul's  activities. 
Faith  so  unites  to  Christ  as  to  give  fellowship  in  the  graces  of 
Christ  and  in  the  life  of  Christ  from  His  incarnation  to  His  reign 
and  second  advent.  This  faith  so  unites  with  Christ  that  there 
is  direct  and  immediate  communion  with  Him.  Christ  with  ir- 
resistible attraction  draws  faith  to  Him  and  faith  rests  on  His 
breast.  "Where  can  faith  and  Christ  meet  save  in  the  Reason.!* 
Faith  does  not  ascend  to  heaven.  Christ  descends  from  heaven. 
Christ  presents  Himself  to  faith  as  its  appropriate  object,  as  its 
source  and  mspiration,  as  the  ground  of  its  existence  and  its  cer- 
tainty. Christ  imparts  certainty  to  faith  in  this  communion  ; 
where  alone  it  can  be  imparted,  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason."  (p. 
55.) 


"We  appeal  to  the  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  respecting 
those  outside  the  visible  kingdom  of  God,  and  therefore  excluded 
from  contact  with  Holy  Scripture  and  Church.  What  shall  we 
say  to  the  preaching  of  Paul  ?  '  And  he  made  of  one  every  na- 
tion of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  having  de- 
termined their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habi- 
tation :  that  they  should  seek  God,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after 
him  and  find  him,  though  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us ; 
for  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being;  as  certain  even 
of  your  own  poets  have  said,  For  we  are  also  his  offspring." 
(Acts  xvii.  26-28.) 

"  Do  none  of  these  offspring  of  God  among  the  heathen  feel 
after  Him?  Do  those  who  feel  fail  to  find  Him  .^  Do  none  of 
those,  the  root  of  whose  being  is  in  God,  look  to  the  root  and 
become  conscious  of  that  fountain  of  life  springing  up  within 
them?  Or  are  these  words  of  Paul  a  fancy,  incapable  of  realiza- 
tion, a  dream  which  finds  no  counterpart  in  the  real  heathen 
man  ? 

'•  What  of  the  preaching  of  Peter?  '  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  fear- 
eth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him.'  (Acts 
X.  34-35-) 

"Are  there  no  God-fearing  men  among  the  nations  who  hold 
to  the  ethnic  religions  ?   Are  there  none  who  give  alms  and  work 


THE  REASON  2^5 

righteousness?  Was  Peter  mistaken  ?  Does  God  really  respect 
persons  and  reject  a  man  because  he  was  not  born  a  Hebrew  or 
because  he  was  not  educated  in  Christian  lands  ?  Was  Cornelius 
the  only  illustration  of  this  profound  utterance?  And  was  he 
accepted  simply  because  he  might  have  been  a  proselyte  ? 

"What  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus?  'The  men  of  Nineveh 
shall  stand  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall 
condemn  it:  for  they  repented  at  the  prv^'aching  of  Jonah;  and 
behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here.  The  queen  of  the  south 
shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  con- 
demn it :  for  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here.' 
(Matt.  xii.  41-42.) 

**  If  the  proud  Assyrians,  the  inhabitants  of  Nineveh,  were  not 
excluded  from  repentance  and  redemption  because  they  had  no 
Bible  and  were  hostile  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  why  should  any 
other  metropolis  of  the  ethnic  religions  be  excluded  if  they  re- 
pent in  accordance  with  the  teaching  they  have  ?  Is  the  Orient- 
al queen  the  only  potentate  who  has  found  God  by  wisdom  out- 
side the  kingdom  ?  True,  the  one  heard  the  preaching  of  Jonah 
and  the  other  the  wisdom  of  Solomon.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
that  either  of  them  accepted  Holy  Scripture  or  united  with  Holy 
Church."  (p.  58.) 


"  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  my  motive  for  introducing  the 
divine  authority  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  into  my  Inaugural 
Address.  If  you  will  read  the  Inaugural  with  any  degree  of  at- 
tention, you  will  see  that  my  purpose  was  not  to  extol  Rational- 
ism or  to  magnify  Martineau  or  to  teach  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen  ;  but  as  I  distinctly  said  :  '  We  have  examined  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine  authority  in  an  introduction 
to  our  theme,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  because  they  open 
our  eyes  to  see  mistakes  that  are  common  to  the  three  depart- 
ments.' "  (p.  28.) 

"  My  subsequent  use  of  the  divine  authority  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason  was  in  order  to  show  that  the  three  seats  of  author- 
ity speak  in  harmony ;  and  in  order  to  point  to  their  vast  im- 
portance for  a  higher  Christian  life.  I  said,  and  I  reaffirm  wiiat 
I  said :  '  the  Reason  also  has  its  rights,  its  place  and  importance 
in    the    economy   of    Redemption.     I    rejoice    at    the  age  of 


266       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE   APPEAL 

Rationalism,  with  all  its  wonderful  achievements  in  philosophy. 
I  look  upon  it  as  preparing  men  to  use  their  reasons  in  the 
last  great  age  of  the  world.  Criticism  will  go  on  with  its 
destruction  of  errors,  and  its  verification  of  truth  and  fact. 
The  human  mind  will  learn  to  know  its  powers,  and  to  use 
them.  The  forms  of  the  reason,  the  conscience,  the  religious 
feeling,  the  aesthetic  taste — all  the  highest  energies  of  our 
nature  will  exert  themselves  as  never  before.  God  will  appear 
in  their  forms  and  give  an  inward  assurance  and  certainty 
greater  than  that  given  in  former  ages.  These  increased  powers 
of  the  human  soul  will  enable  men  to  search  those  higher  mys- 
teries of  Biblical  theology  that  no  theologian  has  yet  mastered, 
and  those  mysteries  that  are  wrapped  up  in  the  institutions  of 
the  Church  to  all  who  really  know  them.  It  is  impossible  that 
the  Bible  and  the  Church  should  ever  exert  their  full  power  unti' 
the  human  reason,  trained  and  strained  to  the  uttermost,  rises  to 
the  heights  of  its  energies  and  reaches  forth  after  God  and  His 
Christ  with  absolute  devotion  and  self-renouncing  love.  Then 
we  may  expect  on  the  heights  of  theological  speculation,  and 
from  the  peaks  of  Christian  experience,  that  those  profound  doc- 
trines that  now  divide  Christendom  by  their  antinomies  will  ap- 
pear as  the  two  sides  of  the  same  law,  or  the  foci  of  a  divine  el- 
lipse, which  is  itself  but  one  of  the  curves  in  that  conic  section  of 
God's  dominion  in  which,  in  loving  wisdom.  He  has  appointed 
the  lines  of  our  destiny,"  (Inaugural  Address,  pp.  65,  66.) 

"  Consider  for  a  moment,  (a)  What  can  you  do  in  private 
prayer  unless  divine  authority  comes  to  you  in  the  forms  of  the 
Reason  ?  How  can  you  fix  your  mind  on  God,  how  can  you  send 
forth  a  petition  unto  His  ears,  how  can  you  expect  an  answer  un- 
less the  soul  reaches  forth  with  all  its  powers  in  order  to  lay 
hold  upon  God.''  And  where  will  you  find  Him.'  In  the  air? 
Can  you  ascend  to  Him.-"  We  speak  of  it  in  local  relations,  but 
we  do  not  really  ascend  to  heaven — God  descends  to  us.  He 
condescends  to  answer  us  by  entering  into  us  and  taking  pos- 
session of  us  by  His  almighty  presence  and  power. 

"  How  can  you  know  that  your  prayers  have  been  heard  ? 
How  can  you  know  that  they  have  been  answered,  unless  the 
divine  Spirit  gives  you  that  knowledge  through  a  fountain  of  di- 
vine authority  bursting  forth  within  you  .''  I  appeal  to  your  Chris- 
tian experience  in  private  prayer.     Are  you  not  accustomed  to 


THE  REASON  267 

turn  away  from  the  world  and  fix  your  attention  on  God  in  earn- 
est pleas  for  help  or  glad  thanksgiving  ?  Have  you  not  been  as- 
sured as  by  a  touch  divine  flashing  the  light  you  need  to  see  the 
pathway  of  privilege  and  duty,  determining;  you  to  pursue  the 
right  course  and  calming  your  feelings  into  a  heavenly  peace? 
No  possible  influence,  of  friendly  counsel,  or  hostile  threats,  can 
stay  or  deflect  the  course  of  the  man  whom  God  has  taught  in 
prayer. 

"  I  cannot  understand  how  any  one  who  is  accustomed  to  private 
prayer,  and  especially  to  ejaculatory  prayer,  and  who  endeavors 
to  follow  the  guidance  of  God's  Spirit  in  his  daily  life — I  cannot 
understand  how  any  such  man  could  possibly  consent  to  a  denial 
of  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  within  his  own  soul. 

"  {b)  Think  also  of  your  hours  of  religious  meditation  and  pri- 
vate communion  with  God.  Some  of  you,  I  doubt  not,  have  en- 
joyed such  hours  when  the  world  has  vanished,  Holy  Church  is 
forgotten,  the  Bible  lies  unnoticed,  and  nothing  interposes  be- 
tween you  and  God.  What  heights  of  religious  ecstasy,  what 
raptures  of  heavenly  bliss  do  those  enjoy  whose  religious  feelings 
thrill  with  the  touch  of  the  divine  Spirit,  whose  conscience  is 
alive  with  holy  concepts,  and  whose  religious  imagination  sees 
|esus  Christ  in  His  wondrous  grace  and  matchless  beauty.  Such 
heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus  are  open  to  us  because  Christ 
Jesus  comes  to  us  in  accordance  with  His  promise  and  enters  the 
forms  of  the  Reason,  and  fills  all  the  avenues  of  the  soul  with 
fountain-streams  of  sweetest  authority. 

"  {c)  How  can  Christian  doctrine  be  rightly  unfolded  unless 
by  a  Christian  speculation,  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit,  working 
within  the  Reason  ?  There  is  speculative  theology  which  is  mere 
rationalizing — there  is  scholastic  theology  that  is  mere  scholas- 
ticism. All  such  theology  is  a  mere  process  of  logical  evolu- 
tion, subject  to  the  errors  into  which  weak  man  is  ever  fall- 
ing. But  a  true  Christian  theologian  who  would  know  the 
truth  of  God  must  be  willing  to  do  the  will  of  God.  Faith 
cannot  go  far  ahead  of  practice.  Theology  cannot  outstrip 
life.  Nothing  is  genuine  in  Christian  theologfv  which  is  not 
born  of  God's  Spirit.  How  else  shall  the  Christian  theologian 
get  the  truth  of  God  unless  he  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  into 
the  truth  ?  The  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  the  Church  and  in  the  in- 
dividual Christian  for  this  purpose,  giving  divine  authority  and 


2(58      ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

certainty  of  truth  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason.  Thus  the  theolo- 
gian grows  in  the  divine  doctrine.  Thus  the  Church  advances 
in  Its  most  holy  faith. 

"  I  have  shown  you  by  indubitable  evidence  from  Confession 
and  from  Scripture  and  from  Christian  experience  that  '  there  are 
historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  the  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  Reason.'  It  is  an  historical  fact  which  can- 
not be  gainsaid  without  closing  the  eyes  to  evidence  which  per- 
vades history. 

"  Early  in  our  century  a  great  revival  movement  took  its  rise 
in  Oxford,  and  spread  all  over  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
churches  which  are  her  daughters.  It  was  the  Anglo-Catholic 
revival,  whose  essential  principle  was  the  recognition  of  the 
divine  authority  in  the  Church.  In  the  middle  of  our  century 
another  revival  movement  spread  over  the  English-speaking 
world,  having  as  its  great  principle  the  divine  authority  in  the 
Bible.  In  the  closing  years  of  our  century  another  great  revival 
took  its  rise  in  the  East  of  London  and  spread  all  over  Christen- 
dom in  the  form  of  the  Salvation  Army.  This  Army  is  the  anti- 
thesis of  the  Anglo-Catholic  movement  because  it  is  altogether 
unchurchly.  It  seeks  immediate  communion  with  God,  divine 
authority  within  the  soul  by  the  baptism  of  Blood  and  Fire  which 
come  from  the  real  presence  of  Christ  and  the  all-pervading 
power  of  the  indwelling  Spirit. 

"  I  call  these  three  great  revival  movements  of  our  century  to 
witness  that  divine  authority  comes  to  men  through  the  three 
great  fountains,  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.  Every 
revival  movement  of  the  past  witnesses  a  similar  confession. 
Wherever  there  has  been  vital  religion,  wherever  there  have  been 
holy  men  and  women  seeking  after  the  living  God,  God  has 
given  them  the  assurance  of  His  presence  and  authority,  some- 
times through  the  Church,  sometimes  through  the  Bible,  and 
sometimes  through  the  Reason.  We  cannot  deny  this  without 
shutting  our  eyes  to  history,  or  refusing  to  recognize  in  these  re- 
vival movements  anything  but  illusions  and  delusions  of  pious 
enthusiasts.  I  decline  to  recognize  one  form  af -genuine  and  re- 
fuse the  others  as  delusions.  I  recognize  them  all,  eaqh  in  its 
place  combining  to  accomplish  the  full  work  of  grace  in  the 
world. 

"  Convict  me  of  heresy  under  Charge  I.,  and  you  challenge  the 


AS  TO  MARTINEAU  269 

Christian  centuries.  All  the  ages  will  be  against  you,  and,  in  a 
multitude  of  voices  like  the  roar  of  many  waters,  will  denounce 
you  as  knowing  neither  the  truth  nor  the  power  of  God."  {The 
DrfcHce,  pp.  60-64.) 

Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  the  view  which 
has  been  set  before  you  as  I  trust  with  sufficient  ful- 
ness in  these  extracts  is  a  view  without  which,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  there  can  be  no  spiritual  reHgion,  and  no 
higher  life,  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  possibly  ground 
the  salvation  of  any  of  the  heathen,  or  the  salvation  of 
any  one,  outside  of  certain  religious  communions,  un- 
less you  base  it  upon  some  such  doctrine  as  this.  I  do 
not  see  how  we  can  enter  into  personal  communion 
with  Jesus  Christ  and  the  living  God  unless  we  recog- 
nize that  God's  Holy  Spirit  is  present  with  us,  and  that 
we  can  come  and  do  come  into  immediate  fellowship 
with  God,  in  which  the  world,  the  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  everything  pass  away,  and  our  union  and  contact 
with  God  are  immediate  and  complete. 

I  think  you  will  see,  on  reflection,  that  the  view  I  have 
taken  is  in  the  interest  of  a  higher  life,  and  if  the  breth- 
ren will  only  rise  to  it,  their  religious  experience  will  be 
richer  and  fuller,  more  Biblical,  more  confessional,  more 
like  that  of  the  Puritan  heroes  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, and  more  like  that  of  the  great  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth  century. 

I  am  not  teaching  any  heresy  in  this  doctrine.  I  am 
t^ching  the  truth  of  God  which  has  come  down 
through  the  ages  of  the  Christian  Church. 

^  *   '  As  to  Martineau. 

"  I  said  that  '  Martineau  did  not  find  divine  authority 
in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  en- 
throned in  his  own  soul.'      Holy  Scripture  is  sufficient 


270       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

to  give  saving  knowledge  even  when  men  do  not  find  it. 
It  is  sufficient  for  all  men — for  the  entire  world.  But 
all  men  do  not,  in  fact,  gain  this  saving  knowledge  from 
the  Bible.  I  did  not  say  whether  Martineau  gained 
saving  knowledge  from  the  Bible  or  not.  That  was  not 
the  question  before  me  in  the  Inaugural.  I  was  consid- 
ering the  question  of  religious  certainty,  the  fountains 
of  divine  authority.  I  did  not  say  that  Martineau  re- 
jected the  way  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Bible,  but  I 
said  Martineau  could  not  find  certainty  of  divine 
authority  in  the  Church  or  the  Bible.  He  says  he  did 
not  and  could  not.  We  have  no  right  to  doubt  him  or 
dispute  him  in  this  statement  of  his  experience.  The 
only  question  which  was  raised  by  me  was,  whether  he 
did  find  God  '  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.'  That  is  a 
question  of  fact.  I  did  not  raise  the  question  whether 
a  man  who  rejects  the  way  of  salvation  revealed  in  the 
Scripture  may  find  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.  I 
did  not  consider  that  question  in  the  Inaugural.  I_der 
cline  to  consider  it  now.  I  insist  that  this  court  shall 
confine  itself  to  the  questions  raised  in  my  Inaugural 
and  not  rove  over  the  field  of  theology  generally,  under 
the  guidance  of  this  erratic  committee.  I  have  shown 
that  Scripture,  history,  Confession,  and  experience 
prove  that  there  are  those  who  find  God  enthroned 
within  their  own  souls.  The  question  is  whether  Mar- 
tineau was  such  a  person.  I  have  said  that  he  was  such 
a  person.  It  is  possible  I  may  be  mistaken  in  this 
question  of  fact.  But  such  a  mistake  is  no  heresy  unless 
I  am  a  heretic  under  the  general  charge  that  'the  Rea- 
son is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.'  If  I  am  in 
error  about  Martineau,  the  example  used  by  me  was  a 
bad  one.  You  may  think  so  if  you  please.  A  bad  ex- 
ample may  discredit  a  proposition,  but  it  does  not  dis- 


THE  CHURCH  271 

prove  it.  If  my  opinion  of  Martineau  errs  at  all,  it  is 
on  the  side  of  Christian  love,  which  covers  over  a 
multitude  of  sins.  The  prosecution  run  great  risks 
of  trenching  on  Christian  love,  if  they  venture  to  assert 
that  Martineau  is  mistaken  when  he  claims  to  have 
found  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul."  {The  Defence, 
p.  66.) 

"  The  Church. 

I  have  claimed,  under  the  second  charge,  that  the 
Church  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  "  The 
Westminster  Confession  clearly  shows  that  the  visible 
Church  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  that 
He  hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of 
God  unto  it ;  and  '  doth  by  His  own  presence  and  Spirit 
make  them  effectual.'  If  the  Presbytery  is  not  a  court 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  erected  by  divine  authority ; 
if  you  have  not  been  given  the  ordinances  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  administer  in  His  name ;  if  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  Spirit  are  not  present  in  the  midst  of  you — then  you 
are  no  part  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  at  all.  I  do 
not  think  that  any  considerable  number  of  you  hold 
such  heretical  views.  But  whatever  this  court  may  con- 
clude, I  declare  that  the  statement  of  the  Confession  is 
a  true  statement.  There  is  divine  authority  in  the 
Church ;  it  is  Christ's  kingdom.  He  reigns  over  it.  He 
inhabits  it  by  His  Spirit,  He  makes  its  institutions  effica- 
cious. He  grants  access  to  Himself  through  His  Church. 
Our  Presbyterian  fathers  rejoiced  in  such  access.  Their 
descendants  enjoy  this  unspeakable  privilege.  Are 
we  to  be  robbed  of  our  birthright?  Are  you  ready 
to  banish  from  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  the  witnessing  Spirit,  the  indwelling 
Christ,  the    living   God,  in    order   to    incase   the    Holy 


272       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Trinity  in  the  covers  of  a  book?     Shall  we  destroy  the 
Church  in  order  to  exalt  the  Bible  ?"     (pp.  70-71.'^ 

"  The  sacraments  which  we  are  constantly  enjoying  in 
our  churches,  being  instituted  by  Christ,  must  have  divine 
authority.  Whenever  we  use  them,  the  authority  of 
God  is  impressed  upon  us  by  the  words  of  institution 
and  the  prayer  of  consecration.  They  are  not  mere 
ceremonies  established  by  divine  authority.  They  are 
means  of  grace,  they  give  something  of  immense  value 
to  us.  They  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  mediation.  There  is  divine  authority  in  this 
signifying,  sealing,  and  exhibiting.  There  is  no  less 
authority  in  what  the  sacraments  set  forth  than  in  what 
Holy  Scripture  sets  forth.  They  *  strengthen  and  in- 
crease faith  and  all  other  graces.'  How  can  they  do 
this  unless  divine  authority  imparts  that  strength  and 
increase.'*"     (p.  71.) 

"  If  the  efficacy  of  a  sacrament  depends  upon  the 
working  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
be  in  touch  with  the  believer  in  the  sacrament,  and  if 
He  is  in  touch  with  the  believer,  pod  is  in  touch  with 
him,  and  there  is  divine  authority  imparted  in  the  pres- 
ence and  power  of  the  Pxoly  Spirit."     (p.  71".) 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  word  spoken  by  Dr. 
Lampe  yesterday  afternoon.  He  says,  if  I  understood 
him  aright — and  I  endeavored  to  take  down  his  exact 
language — "  We  know  nothing  of  Christ  except  through 
the  Bible  story."  He  acknowledges  it.  We  know  noth- 
ing of  Christ  except  through  the  Bible  story.  Are  you 
ready  to  consent  to  that,  commissioners  of  the  General 
Assembly?  Have  we  no  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Are  we  not 
brought   into  personal  relations  with   Jesus  Christ,  into 


THE  CHURCH  273 

a  personal  knowledge  of  Him  at  the  Lord's  table  ?  I 
carmot  subscribe  to  Dr.  Lampe's  doctrine.  It  is  rank 
heresy.  If  there  ever  was  a  heresy  prorrtulgated  in  the 
history  of  the  Church,  that  statement  is  the  rankest 
heresy. 

"  If  our  Lord  is  really  present  to  us  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  is  not  divine  authority  present  with  us  in  Him  ? 
and  if  divine  authority  is  present  in  Him  are  not  all  of  tjie 
spiritual  benefits  thus  received  of  divine  authority,  and 
do  they  not  come  with  certainty  to  our  souls?  The 
Holy  Supper  is  often  more  potent  than  Holy  Scripture 
in  the  impartation  of  divine  authority  and  certainty.  It 
is  thus  rightly  named  a  sealing  ordinance.  You  cannot 
deny  that  there  is  divine  authority  in  the  Church  with- 
out denying  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist, without  robbing  the  sacraments  of  their  historic 
value  to  the  Christian  world.  I  appeal  to  your  religious 
experience  in  the  communion  hour.  Have  we  not  en- 
joyed fellowship  with  our  divine  Master  at  the  Lord's 
table?  Have  not  our  religious  emotions  been  quick- 
ened by  a  power  divine?  Have  we  not  felt  in  our  in- 
most being  the  divine  touch  ?  Have  we  not  seen  the 
Lord  with  eyes  of  faith  and  holy  love  ?  Listen  to  the 
testimony  of  prophet  and  sage;  of  evangelist  and  apostle, 
of  martyr  and  saint,  of  theologian  and  reformer,  of  holy 
men  and  women  in  all  ages,  an  innumerable  company, 
whose  voices  flow  down  the  ages,  from  all  churches,  from 
all  lands,  and  in  every  language  and  tongue,  through 
every  variety  of  liturgy  and  ceremony  and  rite  : 

'*  O  Christ,  Saviour  divine  !  we  testify  to  Thy  gracious 
presence,  Thy  sweet  authority.  Thy  heavenly  gifts  of 
comfort  and  of  joy,  in  the  sacrament  of  Thy  love."  (p. 
72.) 

"  The  Church  has  no  divine  authority  in  itself — apart 


27^       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

from  God.  Its  divine  authority  is  in  that  its  chief  in- 
stitutions were  divinely  appointed,  and  that  these  di- 
vinely appointed  institutions  are  the  ordinary  channels 
of  the  divine  grace.  The  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority.  The  divine  authority  flows  forth  from  God 
Himself,  as  the  sole  original  fountain-head  and  ultimate 
source,  through  the  fountain  of  the  Church,  and  dis- 
tributes its  healing  and  life-giving  streams  through  all 
its  ministries."     (p.  74.) 

The  Case  of  Spurgeon. 

Now,  a  few  words  as  to  the  case  of  Spurgeon  : 
"  The  prosecution  use  the  passage  from  the  Inaugural 
referring  to  Spurgeon,  under  both  charges.  They  harp 
upon  it  in  their  argument  to  excite  prejudice  against 
me.  What  I  said  about  Spurgeon  may  not  be  pleasing 
to  the  prosecution.  It  may  be  very  distasteful  to  many 
members  of  the  presbytery."  So  I  would  say  here.  It 
may  be  distasteful  to  many,  perhaps  to  most,  of  the 
members  of  the  court.  "  But  is  it  not  strictly  true?  Is 
it  not  a  fact  that  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the  modern 
evangelical  ?  Did  he  not  assail  the  Church  and  the  Reason 
in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  ? 
These  are  well-known  weaknesses  of  the  great  preacher. 
But  he  had  so  many  excellent  Christian  qualities  that 
the  world  pardons  his  weakness  in  the  matters  referred 
to  and  honors  him  as  the  noblest  evangelical  of  them 
all.  It  may  seem  strange  to  some  of  you  that  *  the 
average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not  assign 
him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  than  Mar- 
tineau  or  Newman.'  But  a  little  reflection  ought  to 
convince  you  that  it  is  so.  Spurgeon  is  the  hero  of  the 
Evangelical  party  in  the  Church.  He  was  generally  es- 
teemed to  be  the  greatest  preacher  of  the  gospel  in  our 


THE  CASE  OF  SPURGEON  275 

generation.  His  sermons  have  been  of  incalculable 
benefit  to  multitudes.  I  yield  to  none  in  admiration  of 
Spurgeon  as  a  master  of  sacred  eloquence." 

It  was  my  privilege  to  enjoy  many  times  listening  to 
his  eloquence,  and  to  know  a  great  deal  of  the  work  he 
was  doing. 

"  But  any  one  who  understands  the  state  of  religious 
opinion  in  England  knows  that  Spurgeon  only  repre- 
sented a  party  among  the  Non-conformists,  and  that  a 
considerable  proportion  of  them  would  not  assign  him  a 
higher  place  than  Martineau  or  Newman.  He  lived  to 
find  himself  in  a  hopeless  minority  in  his  own  denomi- 
nation and  to  separate  from  the  mass  of  the  Non-conform- 
ists, whom  he  accused  of  being  on  the  '  down  grade.' 
He  was  not  a  master  of  Christian  theology,  and,  there- 
fore, so  soon  as  he  went  out  of  his  sphere  to  teach  men 
wiser  than  himself  he  made  a  sad  failure  among  those 
who  were  nearest  to  him  in  denominational  affini- 
ties. In  the  average  opinion  of  the  Church  of  England 
Spurgeon  would  certainly  assume  the  lowest  place  of  the 
three.  Among  Roman  Catholics,  the  world  over,  New- 
man would  have  the  pre-eminence.  Among  German 
Protestants,  Martineau  would  hold  the  highest  rank.  In 
North  America,  without  doubt,  Spurgeon  is  in  greatest 
estimation.  I  did  not  assign  Spurgeon  a  lower  place 
than  Newman  or  Martineau.  I  did  not  say  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Christian  world  he  would  take  the  lowest 
place  of  the  three.  I  did  not  give  the  average  opinion  of 
the  United  States,  or  of  Non-conforming  England,  or  of 
Presbyterian  Scotland,  or  of  Ulster,  or  of  the  Evangel- 
ical party  ;  but  I  said  correctly,  '  The  average  opinion  of 
the  Christian  world  would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.'  " 
(pp.  79-80.) 


276       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

I  think  that  no  man  who  really  looks  the  situation  in 
the  face  can  possibly  deny  that  proposition. 

**  But  suppose  I  made  a  mistake  in  statistics,  and  my 
opinion  is  wide  of  the  facts,  is  such  a  mistake  heresy? 
Am  I  responsible  for  the  facts  ?  Am  I  to  blame  if 
Spurgeon  in  public  estimation  shares  the  throne  with 
Martineau  and  Newman  ?  Is  it  any  merit  of  mine  if  he 
be  exalted  above  them  ?  Can  I  change  the  facts  by 
my  statements  about  them  ?  .  .  .  .  Where  do  they  find 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  that  the  modern  Evan- 
gelical is  the  most  favored  of  the  children  of  God  ?  " 
(p.  80.) 

"  As  Christian  ministers  I  ask  you,  ought  we  not  to  es- 
timate these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time 
with  Christian  love  ?  And  is  it  not  Christian  love  to  say, 
we  refuse  to  determine  which  of  them  has  the  highest 
place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  We  recognize  each  as  a 
prophet  to  our  generation.  We  see  in  each  a  man  who 
has  enjoyed  the  light  of  the  divine  countenance,  and 
who  has  reflected  in  his  life  and  character  the  graces  of 
a  child  of  God. 

"  I  asked  the  question  in  the  Inaugural  and  I  ask  it 
again  of  this  court,  whether  in  view  of  all  the  facts 
adduced,  *  may  we  not  conclude,  on  the  whole,  that 
these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time,  have, 
each  in  his  own  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divirte 
authority?'  Let  each  juror  answer  this  question  for 
himself.  You  must  answer  it  inyour  own  verdict.  You 
must  either  say  with  me,  '  Yes,  we  may  conclude  that 
Spurgeon,  Newman,  and  Martineau  have  rested  on 
divine  authority  ';  or  you  must  say  with  the  prosecution, 
'  No  !  Spurgeon  found  God  in  the  Bible,  but  Newman 
did  not  find  God  in  the  Church,  and  Martineau  did  not 
find  God  in  the  Reason.     They  were  mistaken  in  their 


THE  CASE  OF  SPURGEON  277 

religious  experience.  They  were  without  God  and  with- 
out divine  authority  for  their  faith  and  life.'  You  cannot 
evade  the  issue,  if  you  bring  this  issue  into  the  charges. 
Your  verdict  will  be  interpreted  by  the  Christian  world  as 
yes  or  no  to  the  question.  I  rejoice  in  this  issue.  Again  I 
say,  Yes ;  and  I  would  deliberately  choose  the  company 
for  time  and  for  eternity  of  Martineau  and  Newman 
rather  than  of  such  loveless  persons  as  would  cast  them 
out  of  the  congregation  of  the  faithful."  {The  Defence, 
pp.  80-81.) 

But  let  me  say,  Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  in  my 
opinion  you  have  no  right  to  bring  any  of  these  concrete 
cases  into  the  Charges.  They  are  not  in  the  Charges. 
Anything  that  I  have  said  as  regards  Martineau,  or  any- 
thing that  I  have  said  as  regards  Newman,  is  not  made 
an  element  of  charge  against  me.  The  references  to 
them  in  the  extracts  which  I  have  read  are  only  brought 
in  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  proposition  stated  in 
the  Charge,  and  therefore  you  have  no  right  to  bring 
these  concrete  cases  into  the  Charge.  If  you  do,  you  must 
meet  the  issue  before  the  Christian  world. 

Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  serious  er- 
ror made  by  Dr.  Lampe  in  his  argument.  He  said,  if  I 
mistake  not,  that  the  Bible  was  the  only  and  final  au- 
thority to  Christ  and  His  apostles.  So  I  took  it  down. 
Think  of  that  statement,  brethren.  Did  Christ  and  His 
apostles  give  us  nothing  more  than  they  found  in  the 
Bible,  the  Old  Testament,  in  their  hands  ?  Did  Jesus 
Christ  depend  for  His  authority  upon  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures?  Did  He  not  come  forth  as  the  incarnate 
Word,  fresh  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father  with  a  new 
revelation,  infinitely  more  precious  than  all  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament?  Did  the  apostles  limit 
themselves  for  their  authority  to  the  Old  Testament 


278       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

Scriptures  ?  Did  they  not  claim  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
was  within  them,  that  they  spake  as  the  ambassadors  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  that  they  spake  with  the  same  author- 
ity  with  which  the  Old  Testament  prophets  spoke — a 
word  coming  forth  fresh  from  the  enthroned  and  glori- 
fied Jesus  with  an  infallible,  divine  authority  to  all  who 
received  it  ?  You  can  make  but  one  answer  to  this 
question.  The  statement  of  Dr.  Lampe  is  dreadfully 
wrong. 

Another  statement  that  Dr.  Lampe  made  is  no  less 
false.  He  said  that  faith  is  based  solely  on  the  authority 
of  Holy  Scripture.  Do  you  believe  that,  brethren?  Is 
your  faith  based  solely  on  the  authority  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture ?  My  faith  is  not.  My  faith  is  based  upon  Jesus 
Christ,  my  Saviour,  and  upon  Him  alone.  The  Holy 
Scripture  has  brought. me  to  Him  to  rejoice  in  knowledge 
of  Him  as  a  person,  to  live  in  communion  with  Him, 
and  to  derive  my  authority  directly  from  Him  and  from 
His  Holy  Spirit. 

Now,  brethren,  I  have  gone  over  the  first  and  second 
Charges.  I  hope  that  you  understand  my  position  ex- 
actly. If  you  wish  to  condemn  me  for  heresy  for  this 
I  cannot  help  it.  Here  I  stand  before  God.  These  are 
my  views,  and  I  shall  proclaim  them  as  the  truth  of  God 
as  long  as  I  live. 

Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  just  received  a  question  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter  that  I  have  passed  over,  which,  in  ac- 
cordance with  my  promise,  I  shall  first  answer. 

"  Would  you  kindly  give  me  your  interpretation  of 
the  word  '  fountain,'  as  you  use  it,  and  oblige." 

I  thought  I  had  done  this,  but  it  seems  exceedingly 
difificult  to  make  my  meaning  plain.  I  use  "  fountain  " 
not  in  the  sense  of  the  original  source,  because,  as  I 
have  said,  God  alone  is  the  original  source.      But   I  use 


ERRORS  IN  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  279 

"  fountain  "  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  that  out  of  which 
the  waters  flow,  synonymous  with  "  channel  "  and  "  me- 
dium.' God  is  the  only  original  source.  The  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason  are  channels,  media,  means  of 
grace,  by  which  God  communicates  His  divine  authority 
to  men.     I  hope  I  have  made  myself  plain. 

Errors  in  Holy  Scripture. 

I  now  wish  to  bring  forth  and  state  positively  what 
my  views  are  with  reference  to  errors  in  Holy  Scripture. 
In  the  argument  on  the  logic  of  the  case,  I  endeavored 
to  show  that  my  views  were  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  with  Holy  Scripture.  I 
now  wish  to  bring  forward  what  is  my  position.  I  rec- 
ognize that  I  have  asserted  that  there  may  have  been 
errors  in  the  original  autographs  of  Holy  Scripture.  I 
have  not  said  that  there  must  be.  There  may  be — there 
may  have  been  errors  in  the  original  autographs.  Now 
I  quote  from  my  argument  before  the  Presbytery : 

"  I  shall  adhere  to  the  policy  which  I  have  thus  far 
followed  with  regard  to  errors  in  Holy  Scripture.  I 
have  refused  to  accept  the  dogma  that  the  original  au- 
tographs were  inerrant.  I  have  maintained  that  there  are 
errors  in  the  texts  which  we  have  and  in  the  best  texts 
we  can  get  by  the  science  of  textual  criticism,  and  that 
it  is  improbable  that  the  original  texts,  if  we  could  dis- 
cover them,  would  be  much  different  from  those  we 
have  in  that  regard.  But  I  have  refused  to  affirm  that 
there  were  errors  in  the  original  autographs;  because  it 
is  unscientific  and  it  is  unscholarly  and  it  is  against  the 
truth-loving  spirit  of  Christianity  to  make  affirmations 
of  dogma  where  we  have  no  certain  evidence.  I  have 
always  refrained  as  far  as  possible  from  pointing  to 
errois  in  the  present  text  of  Scripture.     But  every  Bib- 


2S0       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

lical  scholar  admits  them.  There  are  a  few  professors  in 
the  Biblical  department  in  American  theological  semi- 
naries who  hold  to  this  modern  dogma  of  inerrancy,  and 
in  the  interests  of  this  dogma  try  to  explain  away  the 
errors  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  even  these  Procrusteans 
are  obliged  to  admit  that  they  must  resort,  for  some  of  • 
the  most  stubborn  of  them,  to  conjectures  that  these 
were  bastards  to  the  original  text."  {The  Defence, 
p.  105.) 

Now  just  let  me  say  a  word  about  the  danger  of  this 
position.  True  scholarship  follows  the  best  texts  we  can 
get  by  the  processes  of  textual  criticism,  after  an  ex- 
amination of  all  the  manuscripts,  of  all  the  versions,  of 
all  the  citations  in  ancient  authorities.  We  build  on  that. 
That  is  the  best  text  we  can  get.  Now  do  you  not  see  that 
there  is  peril  in  conjecturing  as  to  the  texts  further  back, 
because,  if  you  are  going  to  conjecture  in  the  interests 
of  orthodoxy,  how  are  you  going  to  prevent  a  man  from 
conjecturing  in  the  interest  of  heterodoxy?  If  you  are 
going  to  insist  on  the  a  priori  argument  that  because  of 
the  truthfulness  of  God  and  the  essential  nature  of  divine 
revelation,  these  original  autographs  must  have  been  in- 
errant,  how  are  you  going  to  resist  those  men  who  specu- 
late, on  what  seems  to  them  to  be  valid  grounds,  that 
there  are  errors  of  a  different  kind  in  Holy  Scripture'' 
How  are  you  going  to  meet  the  rationalists?  How  are 
you  going  to  meet  the  man  who  questions,  on  what  he 
deems  to  be  valid  grounds,  those  texts  of  Holy  Scripture 
(there  are  only  a  few  of  them)  which  teach  directly  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity?  My  dear  brethren,  you 
are  imperilling  the  faith  by  this  position  vastly  more  than 
any  scholar  can,  by  accepting  the  view  which  I  have 
stated,  that  there  may  have  been  errors  in  the  original 
documents.    But  whether  there  were  errors  in  the  orisfinal 


ERRORS  IN  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  281 

autographs  or  not,  what  matters  it,  so  long  as  we  may 
maintain  our  position,  that  there  are  no  errors  that  at  all 
interfere  with  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine?  And  now 
let  me  read  you  a  word  from  my  lectures  on  The  Bible, 
the  Churchy  and  the  Reason  : 

"  The  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  auto- 
graphs of  Scripture  is  one  that  has  no  practical  advan- 
tage, but  it  may  be  very  pernicious  in  effect.  It  is  recog- 
nized that  all  modern  versions  of  the  Bible  contain  er- 
rors. King  James'  version  and  the  Revised  Version 
alike  have  them.  You  cannot  escape  them  in  the  use 
of  the  Scriptures  in  church,  in  Sunday-school,  in  prayer- 
meeting,  and  in  the  home.  The  people  are  exposed  to 
their  influence,  they  cannot  avoid  them.  Our  opponents 
say  that  these  errors  were  not  in  the  original  autographs. 
What  comfort  does  this  ofTer  to  the  people  of  the 
Church  who  never  can  see  the  original  autographs  and 
could  not  read  them  if  they  saw  them  ?  What  possible 
advantage  is  there  in  making  statements  as  to  docu- 
ments to  which  no  man  has  any  access  at  the  present 
time,  or  has  had  access  for  centuries?  Such  a  pure 
speculation  which  is  beyond  any  possibility  of  verifica- 
tion cannot  be  promulgated  as  a  dogma  of  the  Church  ; 
for  no  dogma  has  any  binding  force  that  cannot  be 
proved  by  clear,  definite,  and  decisive  evidence  and  be 
verified  by  criticism.  The  people  who  use  the  English 
Bible  have  no  use  for  such  a  dogma.  They  desire  to 
use  their  Bibles  with  profit  and  to  know  the  grounds  of 
their  faith.  If  the  dogmatician  should  say  to  these  Eng- 
lish readers  of  the  Bible,  who  have  found  errors  that 
they  cannot  explain,  '  A  proved  error  in  Scripture  con- 
tradicts not  only  our  doctrine,  but  the  Scripture  claims, 
and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those  claims,* 
some  would  doubtless  respond :  Then  I  must  give  up 


282       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

my  Bible,  for  I  cannot  deny  the  errors.  If  the  dogma- 
tician  replies,  Oh,  but  these  errors  were  not  in  the  orig- 
inal autographs ;  the  inquirer  asks,  But  how  do  you 
know  that?  Have  you  ever  seen  these  original  auto- 
graphs ?  Has  any  divine  for  a  thousand  years  or  more 
seen  them?  The  dogmatician  can  only  answer,  No,  and 
reaffirm  his  theory  that  Holy  Scripture  must  have  been 
inerrant,  for  God  could  not  give  a  revelation  that  would 
not  be  inerrant.  And  thus  they  reproach  the  real  Bible 
in  which  errors  are  found,  in  order  to  exalt  an  imaginary 
Bible  which  neither  they  nor  any  one  else  has  ever  dis- 
covered. We  are  not  surprised  that  such  arguments 
excite  grave  doubts  in  many  minds  in  our  times,  whether 
the  Bible  is  inspired  at  all. 

"  Biblical  scholars  pursue  a  very  different  course.  They 
say,  Yes,  there  are  errors.  There  is  no  doubt  about 
that.  These  errors  are  also  in  the  original  texts.  There 
is  no  fault  of  translation.  They  are  in  the  best  manu- 
scripts we  have.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  they  were 
also  in  the  original  autographs.  But  we  have  not  the 
original  autographs  and  we  refuse  to  dogmatize  about 
errors  in  them.  But  what  do  these  errors  amount  to, 
after  all?  They  are  only  in  minor  matters,  in  things 
which  lie  entirely  beyond  the  range  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. They  have  nothing  to  do  with  your  religion,  your 
faith  in  God  and  His  Christ,  your  salvation,  your  life 
and  conduct.  They  are  but  as  motes  in  the  sunbeam. 
They  are  the  imperfections  of  the  human  medium 
through  which  the  divine  revelation  has  come.  Men  at 
the  best  are  and  must  be  earthen  vessels,  in  their 
preaching  and  writing  unto  you.  Take  the  word  of 
God  that  is  in  these  writings,  its  message  of  grace  and 
salvation,  its  lessons  of  life,  its  holy  guidance,  its  pre- 
cious comfort.     These  will  attest  themselves  as  the  word 


ERRORS  IN  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  283 

of  God  to  you  and  yours  as  they  have  to  others  in  all 
ages. 

''The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
were  immediately  inspired  by  God,  but  that  inspiration 
did  not  make  them  inerrant  in  matters  of  science.  They 
have  been  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  so  far  as  their  purpose 
of  grace,  their  message  of  salvation,  their  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  is  concerned ;  but  they  are  not  inerrant 
now,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  they  ever  were  inerrant 
in  matters  of  chronology.  They  are  sufficient  to  give 
that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will  which  is  neces- 
sary unto  salvation ;  but  they  are  not  sufficient  to  give 
the  knowledge  of  astronomy  and  botany.  They  are  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  but  they  are 
not  the  only  infallible  rule  of  agriculture  and  naviga- 
tion, of  commerce  and  trade,  of  war  and  finance.  The 
Scriptures  are  pure,  holy,  errorless,  so  far  as  their  own 
purpose  of  grace  is  concerned,  as  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  the  holy  religion,  the  holy  doctrine,  and  the  holy  life. 
They  are  altogether  perfect  in  those  divine  things  that 
come  from  heaven  to  constitute  the  divine  kingdom  on 
earth,  which,  with  patient,  quiet,  peaceful,  but  irresist- 
ible might,  goes  forth  from  the  holy  centre  through  all 
the  radii  of  the  circle  of  human  affairs  and  persists  until 
it  transforms  the  earth  and  man. 

"The  Bible  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
It  is  such,  and  no  one  can  make  it  otherwise.  It  claims 
to  be  such,  and  it  vindicates  its  own  claim.  The  reader 
of  the  Bible  will  find  this  out  for  himself.  The  author- 
ity of  God  will  grasp  his  heart  and  conscience  with  irre- 
sistible power.  The  preaching  of  the  Word  accompanied 
by  the  divine  Spirit  will  ever  continue  its  blessed  work  of 
convicting  and  converting  men,  of  sanctifying  them  and 
redeeming  them.     The  Bible  will  ever  be  the  counsellor 


28i       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

and  guide  of  our  race,-  until  the  second  advent  of  our 
Lord.  From  the  Bible  new  truth  will  break  forth  for 
every  generation,  to  lift  men  higher  and  urge  them  on- 
ward in  the  paths  of  sanctification.  The  Bible  is  the 
master,  the  infallible  rule,  and  it  will  ever  continue  to 
break  in  pieces  every  other  rule  of  faith  and  life  that 
men  may  put  in  its  way.  It  will  ever  continue  to  give 
new  theology,  new  religious  forces,  and  new,  fresher,  and 
grander  guidance  in  holy  life  and  conduct  to  all  the  suc- 
cessive generations  of  mankind. 

"  There  are  errors  in  the  Bible  as  there  are  spots  upon 
the  sun.  The  sun-spots  do  not  disturb  the  light  and. 
heat  and  chemical  action  of  the  great  luminary  or  check 
his  reign  over  our  solar  system.  They  suggest  that 
there  are  greater  mysteries  of  glorious  light  and  reign 
beyond  our  vision.  So  the  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  do 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  impair  the  divine  authority 
that  shines  through  them  or  the  reign  of  grace  that  is 
carried  on  in  this  world  by  means  of  them.  They  inti- 
mate, however,  that  the  authority  of  God  and  His  gra- 
cious discipline  transcend  the  highest  possibilities  of 
human  speech  or  human  writing ;  and  that  the  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  but 
the  religion  of  personal  union  and  communion  with  the 
living  God,"  {The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason, 
pp.  111-115.) 

Higher  Criticism. 

First  I  shall  give  you  the  summary  of  my  views  as  to 
the  Hexateuch  from  my  volume  entitled  The  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  submitted  as  part  of  my  argu- 
ment before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York : 

"(i).  We  have  not  one  narrative,  but  a  fourfold  nar- 
rative of  the  origin  of  the  old  covenant  religion,  as  we 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  285 

have  a  fourfold  gospel  giving  the  narrative  of  the  origin 
of  the  new  covenant  religion.  There  is,  indeed,  a  re- 
markable correspondence  in  these  four  types  or  points 
of  view.  The  Ephraimitic  writer  may  be  compared 
with  Mark,  the  Judaic  writer  with  Matthew,  the  priestly 
writer  with  Luke,  and  the  Deuteronomist  with  John. 
The  difference  between  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Gospels 
is  that  the  four  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been 
compacted  by  a  series  of  inspired  Redactors ;  whereas 
the  Gospels  have  to  be  harmonized  by  uninspired  teach- 
ers in  the  Church.  This  unity  in  variety  strengthens 
the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch.  As  the  four  Gospels 
contain  the  gospel  of  Christ,  so  the  narratives  of  the 
Pentateuch  contain  the  law  of  Moses.  As  our  Saviour 
is  set  forth  by  the  Evangelist  as  the  mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  Moses  is  set  forth  by  the  narratives  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant. 

"  (2).  The  Pentateuch  does  not  give  us  one  Mosaic 
code,  but  several  codes  of  Mosaic  legislation,  a  deca- 
logue of  worship,  a  judicial  code  of  several  decalogues,  a 
people's  code,  a  code  of  holiness,  and  a  priest-code, 
contained  in  the  narratives,  somewhat  as  the  Gospels 
present  us  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  varied  types 
peculiar  to  Mark,  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  As  we 
harmonize  the  Gospels  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  so  we  harmonize  the 
codes  of  the  Pentateuch  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
exposition  of  the  law  of  Moses.  The  law  was  given 
through  Moses,  grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus 
Christ. 

"  (3).  The  Mosaic  legislation  was  delivered  through 
Moses,  the  great  prophetic  law-giver  of  Israel,  and  then 
unfolded  in  historical  usage  and  interpretation  in  a 
series  of  codifications  by  inspired  prophets  and  priests  ; 


286       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

but  it  was  in  several  stages  of  advancement  in  the  his- 
torical life  and  experience  of  Israel  from  the  conquest  to 
the  exile.  It  was  a  divine  ideal,  a  supernatural  revealed 
instruction,  to  guide  the  people  of  Israel  throughout 
their  history,  and  lead  them  to  the  prophet  greater  than 
Moses,  who  was  to  fulfil  and  complete  his  legislation. 
The  law  was  the  true  light  of  Israel  until  the  first  Ad- 
vent, even  as  the  Gospel  is  the  light  and  guide  of  the 
Church  until  the  Second  Advent.  Israel  appropriated 
more  and  more  the  instruction  of  the  law,  as  the  Church 
has  appropriated  more  and  more  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel.  The  history  of  God's  people  under  both  cove- 
nants has  been  essentially  the  same — a  grand  march  for- 
ward under  the  supernatural  light  of  a  divine  revelation. 

"  (4).  Law  and  Prophecy  are  not  two  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate modes  of  revelation,  but  the  same.  The  law  of 
Moses  was  as  truly  prophetic  as  legal.  Moses  was  even 
more  a  prophet  than  a  law-giver.  The  prophets  of  God 
that  followed  him  all  give  divine  law  as  well  as  divine 
prophecy.  As  the  apostles  in  the  new  covenant  were 
not  merely  expositors  of  the  Gospel,  but  came  forth 
from  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ  with  new  revelations, 
enlarging  and  completing  the  Gospel  ;  so  the  prophets 
were  not  mere  expositors  of  the  law,  but  carhe  forth  im- 
mediately from  the  presence  of  Yahweh  as  really  as 
Moses  did,  with  new  revelations  enlarging  and  complete 
ing  the  old.  The  distinction  between  law  and  prophecy 
in  the  Bible  is  a  fluctuating  one,  so  that  the  whole  divine 
revelation  may  be  called  law,  and  also  prophecy,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  Bible  itself. 

"  (5).  There  is  in  the  law,  as  in  the  Gospel,  a  divine 
transforming  power  which  shaped  the  history  of  Israel, 
as  the  Gospel  has  shaped  the  history  of  the  Church  in 
successive  stages  of  appropriation.     Not  without  some 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  287 

reason  have  many  recent  Christian  scholars  after  Nean- 
der  divided  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
names  of  the  chief  apostles  as  indicating  the  various 
types  of  Christianity.  With  even  more  reason  might  we 
divide  the  history  of  Israel  into  stages  of  progress  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  several  law  codes.  The  Christian 
Church  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  the  unity  and 
variety  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  shall  be  fully  manifested 
in  her  historic  life.  The  people  of  Israel  also  reached  a 
stage  when  in  her  historic  life  the  several  codes  har- 
monized, and  the  whole  bent  of  the  nation  was  in  the 
study  of  the  law  and  a  conscientious  fulfilment  of  it,  and 
then  in  the  fulness  of  time  Christ  Jesus  the  Messiah 
came. 

"  The  deeper  study  of  the  unity  and  variety  of  the 
Pentateuchal  narratives  and  laws,  as  we  defend  them 
historically  against  Reuss,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  and 
advance  in  the  apprehension  of  their  sublime  harmony, 
will  fructify  and  enrich  the  theology  of  our  day,  just  as 
the  deeper  study  of  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  gospels 
by  the  school  of  Neander,  in  the  defence  of  them  against 
Strauss,  Renan,  and  Baur,  has  been  an  unspeakable  bless- 
ing in  the  past  generation.  This  having  been  accom- 
plished, we  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  our  eyes 
shall  be  opened  as  never  before  to  the  magnificent 
unity  of  the  whole  Bible  in  the  midst  of  its  wondrous 
variety.  Then  the  word  of  God,  as  one  supernatural 
divine  revelation,  will  rise  into  such  a  position  of  spirit- 
ual power  and  transcendent  influence,  as  shall  greatly 
advance  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hasten  the  realization  of  that  most  blessed 
hope  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  in  glory."     (pp.  160-162.) 

You  hear  a  great  deal  in  these  times  about  the  perils 


2S8       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE   APPEAL 

of  the  Higher  Criticism.  The  Higher  Criticism  as  applied 
to  Holy  Scripture  is  the  same  discipline,  essentially,  that 
is  applied  to  the  study  of  the  classic  literature  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  and  also  to  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the 
Church.  It  has  to  do  only  with  the  literary  forms  of 
Holy  Scripture  ;  it  does  not  at  all  interfere  with  the  sub- 
stance of  Holy  Scripture.  The  only  thing  that  the 
Higher  Criticism  can  do  is  to  answer  questions  as  to  au- 
thorship and  date,  as  to  the  original  structure  of  books, 
whether  they  came  at  once  from  an  original  author;  how 
far  they  have  been  edited  and  re-edited.  But  the  only 
thing  we  have  to  do  as  Christians,  with  our  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, is  to  know  whether  the  Bible,  as  it  now  is,  is  the 
holy  and  inspired  word  of  God.  Now  I  ask  you,  what 
have  all  these  questions,  which  have  simply  to  do  with 
the  production  of  the  Bible — what  have  they  to  do  with 
the  question  whether  the  Bible,  as  it  now  is,  is  the  holy 
and  inspired  word  of  God  or  not  ?  Those  of  us  who  are 
engaged  in  the  study  of  the  Higher  Criticism  claim  that 
we  are  making  the  Old  Testament  more  real,  and  more 
powerful,  giving  it  a  higher  and  grander  position  before 
the  Christian  scholars  of  our  day.  The  Bible  is  being 
studied  as  never  before,  and  the  results  of  this  move- 
ment of  the  Higher  Criticism  will  be  grand  and  glorious 
in  the  future  of  the  Christian  Church. 

There  will  now  be  read  a  citation  from  the  volume, 
The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  in  which  I  en- 
deavor to  sum  up  some  of  the  advantages  of  the  Higher 
Criticism : 

"  Criticism  is  destructive  of  traditional  dogma,  but  it 
is  constructive  of  Biblical  doctrine.  Criticism  from  its 
nature  cannot  destroy  anything  but  error.  It  searches 
for  truth.     It  gives  vastly  more  than  it  takes  away. 

"  Criticism  is  nothing  more  than  a  scientific,  exact, 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  289 

exhaustive  study  of  the  Bible  itself.  It  makes  the  Bible 
more  real,  more  historic,  more  pregnant  with  holy  mean- 
ing than  ever  before,  simply  because  it  studies  the  Bible 
more  extensively  and  more  profoundly.  Criticism  has 
made  the  Bible  a  new  book,  because  exhaustive  study 
has  found  numberless  new  things  in  it,  unknown  to 
students  who  neglected  to  study  it.  In  the  times  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  traditional  dogma  it  was  studied  only 
on  the  surface  and  for  dogmatic  or  practical  purposes. 
It  was  merely  a  treasury  out  of  which  there  might  be  a 
capricious  selection  of  texts  to  prove  statements  of  dog- 
ma which  were  already  constructed  by  deductive  reason- 
ing. It  was  a  thesaurus  of  texts  for  pulpit  discourse 
from  which  one  might  start  an  evangelical  sermon.  But 
now  the  Bible  is  studied  ardently  from  cover  to  cover, 
by  large  numbers  of  enthusiastic  students  the  world 
over,  who  are  bringing  forth  treasures  new  and  old  to 
enrich  the  Church  of  God.  Think  not  the  critics  are 
destroying  the  Bible  which  they  study  with  so  much 
enthusiasm  and  love.  They  have  enthroned  the  Bible 
in  a  higher  position  than  it  has  ever  held  before  in  the 
estimation  of  the  world.  They  have  restored  the  Bible 
to  its  place  as  the  queen  of  the  literature  of  the  world, 
as  the  holy  book  for  the  man  of  science,  the  student  of 
literature  and  art,  the  historian  and  philosopher.  Criti- 
cism has  created  several  new  theological  disciplines,  such 
as  the  Contemporary  History  of  Israel  and  of  Christ  and 
His  apostles,  Biblical  Literature,  and  Biblical  Theology, 
and  these  are  furnishing  the  divine  material  for  a  nobler 
theology  and  a  nobler  Christian  life. 

"  2.  The  traditional  view  of  the  Biblical  books  attached 
all  the  law  to  Moses,  all  the  psalms  to  David,  all  the 
wisdom  to  Solomon.  The  prophets  and  histories  were 
the  only  books  which  were  left  as  guides  to  the  develop- 


290      ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

ment  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  There  was  a  gap  of  cen- 
turies between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  My 
friends,  all  this  has  changed.  The  gap  between  the 
books  has  been  filled  up  by  modern  criticism.  God  did 
not  leave  Israel  without  guidance  when  she  needed  it 
most,  under  the  Persian  and  Greek  yoke,  when  exposed 
to  the  distracting  influence  of  other  religions  and  civil- 
izations. God's  Spirit  abode  with  His  people  after  the 
theophanic  presence  had  departed,  and  holy  men  of  God 
spake  under  His  influence  in  sacred  song  and  wisdom,  in 
historic  composition  and  prophecy  through  all  that  long 
period  of  waiting  for  the  Messiah.  There  is  an  un- 
broken continuity  in  divine  revelation  until  divine  revela- 
tion reached  its  summit  in  Jesus  Christ  and  His  apostles. 
If  Criticism  had  done  nothing  else  than  fill  up  this  sup- 
posed chasm  in  divine  revelation,  it  would  have  con- 
ferred a  boon  of  greater  value  to  the  world  than  all  the 
theories  and  traditions  it  has  destroyed. 

"  3.  Another  great  result  of  Criticism  is  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  pessimistic  theory  that  the  history  of  Israel 
was  a  history  of  backslidings.  Modern  Criticism  finds  a 
legislation  given  by  Moses,  but  unfolding  in  a  series  of 
codes  until  Ezra,  the  second  Moses,  laid  its  capstone. 
Criticism  finds  Israel  from  David  onward  until  the  Mac- 
cabean  age,  singing  and  praying,  in  ever  increasing 
wealth  of  devotion,  sacred  psalms,  responding  from  the 
heart  of  the  people  to  the  teachings  of  God's  law. 
Criticism  finds  a  succession  of  sages  from  Solomon  to 
the  latest  times  preparing  the  way  by  their  sentences  of 
wisdom  for  the  jewelled  sentences  of  the  Messiah  in 
His  training  of  the  twelve.  Israel  did  not  go  on  declin- 
ing through  the  centuries.  Israel  went  on  steadily  ad- 
vancing through  the  centuries  in  religion,  in  doctrine 
and  in  morals,  in  wisdom,  in  law,  in  psalmody,  and  in 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  291 

prophecy,  undergoing  that  divine  training  which  pre- 
pared her  to  welcome  the  Messiah  and  furnish  Him  with 
the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the  new  dispensation. 
What  has  Criticism  destroyed  that  can  compare  with 
this  immense  gain  ? 

"  4.  Criticism  has  shown  a  wonderful  variety  as  well  as 
unity  in  the  Scriptures.  Criticism  has  called  attention 
to  the  marvellous  beauty  of  Biblical  literature.  It  has 
shown  that  there  are  works  of  the  imagination  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  prose  and  poetry,  preparing  the  way 
for  those  visions  of  truth  contained  in  the  parables  of 
our  Lord.  It  has  disclosed  wondrous  specimens  of 
gnomic,  lyric,  and  dramatic  poetry.  It  has  discovered 
forms  of  the  poet's  art  which  approximate  to  the  classic 
epic  poetry.  It  has  disclosed  four  distinct  varieties  of 
historic  composition,  and  detected  in  their  sources  an- 
cient poems  and  legends  which  the  older  Biblical  scholars 
never  dreamed  of.  It  has  more  than  doubled  the  num- 
ber of  Hebrew  prophets.  It  has  increased  the  inspired 
penmen  to  a  much  larger  and  richer  company.  The  old 
choirmasters  of  the  inspired  congregation  remain. 
Moses  and  David,  Solomon  and  Isaiah,  and  everyone  of 
the  ancient  worthies  retain  their  historic  places.  But 
we  now  see  that  they  were  not  merely  soloists  appearing 
at  great  intervals  in  the  progress  of  divine  revelation, 
alone,  without  masters,  without  disciples  and  without 
associates,  but  that  they  were  leaders  of  choirs  of  law- 
givers, historians,  prophets,  poets,  and  sages  who  make 
the  entire  history  of  Israel  a  grand  oratorio  of  redemp- 
tion."    (pp.  146-149.) 

I  have  been  requested  by  a  member  of  the  House  to 
state  definitely  my  views  in  regard  to  my  assertion  that 
Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch  in  its  relation  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  with  reference  to  Moses  and  the  Penta- 


292       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

teuch.     I  shall  endeavor  to  do  so  by  quoting  from   The 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  : 

"  But  some  will  say,  '  Was  it  not  the  common  opinion 
in  the  days  of  our  Lord  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  book  that  bears  his 
name  ?  '  We  answer,  that  so  far  as  we  know,  it  was  the 
common  opinion  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  book  that  bears 
his  name.  But  it  was  also  the  common  opinion  that 
David  wrote  the  Psalter.  As  to  the  Pentateuch,  opinion 
was  divided  whether  it  was  lost  when  the  temple  was 
destroyed  by  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  restored  or  recast 
by  Ezra  or  not.  If  you  insist  upon  interpreting  the 
New  Testament  by  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  of  the  time 
as  regards  Isaiah  and  the  Pentateuch,  you  must  follow  it 
also  as  regards  the  Psalter.  But  why  should  we  interpret 
Jesus  and  His  apostles  by  the  opinions  of  the  Jews  of 
His  time?  Why  should  we  suppose  that  He  shared 
with  them  in  all  the  errors  He  did  not  oppose  and  re- 
fute? Jesus  either  knew  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pen- 
tateuch or  He  did  not  know.  {a).  If  we  said  that  Jesus 
did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or 
not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  His  own  saying  that  He 
knew  not  the  time  of  His  own  advent.  Those  who 
understand  the  doctrine  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ  and 
the  incarnation  of  Christ  find  no  more  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  Jesus  did  not  know  the  author  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch than  that  He  did  not  know  the  day  of  His  own 
advent. 

"  (^).  If  on  the  other  hand  any  one  should  say  Jesus 
must  have  known  all  these  things,  and  He  ought  not  to 
have  used  language  that  might  deceive  men ;  we  re- 
spond, that  His  language  does  not  deceive  men.  We 
have  shov/n  from  literary  usage  in  all  ages  and  in  the 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  293 

Bible  itself  that  it  is  equally  true  and  good  language  for 
the  critics  as  for  the  anti-critics.  The  question  is,  shall 
we  interpret  the  words  of  Jesus  by  the  opinions  of  His 
contemporaries?  This  we  deny.  Jesus  was  not  obliged 
to  correct  all  the  errors  of  His  contemporaries.  He  did 
not  correct  their  false  views  of  science.  He  was  the 
great  physician,  but  He  did  not  teach  medicine.  He 
was  greater  than  Solomon,  and  yet  he  declined  to  de- 
cide questions  of  civil  law  and  politics.  He  never  re- 
buked slavery.  Is  He  responsible  for  slavery  on  that 
account  ?  The  Southern  slaveholders  used  to  say  so ; 
but  even  they  are  now  convinced  of  their  error.  The 
signs  of  the  times  indicate  that  in  a  few  years  the  anti- 
critics  will  disappear  as  completely  as  slaveholders. 

"*The  attempt  to  bar  the  way  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  interposing  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament  is  an  unworthy  effort  to  make  our 
Lord  and  His  apostles  responsible  for  those  conceits  and 
follies  of  ancient  tradition  which  modern  American  tra- 
ditional dogma  with  great  unwisdom  has  accepted  and 
endorsed."     (pp.  127-128.) 

Dr.  Lampe  argued  against  me,  as  if  I  held  the  opinion 
that  Jesus  did  not  know,  or  that  He  accommodated  His 
instruction  to  the  ignorance  of  His  hearers.  He  ignored 
my  opinion  as  stated  in  the  same  volume  as  follows : 

"  It  is  the  custom  in  literature  to  name  anonymous 
writings  after  the  name  of  the  chief  character  in  it,  or 
the  theme  of  it,  and  then  in  that  case  it  is  quite  com- 
mon to  personify  the  book  and  represent  it  as  saying  or 
teaching  this  or  that.  When  Jesus  uses  Moses  as  another 
name  for  the  Law  or  Pentateuch,  and  when  He  repre- 
sents that  Isaiah  prophesied,  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  Jesus  meant  to  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch, or  Isaiah  wrote  the  prophecy  referred  to,  e.  g. 


294       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

The  book  of  Esther  is  named  Esther  not  because  any- 
one ever  supposed  that  she  wrote  it,  but  because  she  is  the 
heroine,  the  theme  of  the  book  ;  and  when  I  say,  as  I 
often  have  said,  Esther  never  uses  the  name  of  God,  or 
teaches  any  doctrine  of  faith,  you  will  understand  me  as 
using  Esther  for  the  book  of  Esther. 

"  No  one  ever  supposed  that  Ruth  wrote  the  book  of 
Ruth,  or  would  suppose  that  I  regarded  her  as  its  author 
if  I  should  say,  as  I  have  often  said,  Ruth  teaches  a 
doctrine  different  from  Deuteronony  and  Ezra  in  rep- 
resenting that  even  a  Moabitish  woman  may  enter 
the  kingdom  of  God.  The  usage  of  the  New  Testament 
is  also  sufficiently  clear  at  these  points.  Thus  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  iv.  7,  uses  David  as  a  name  of  the 
Psalter.  It  was  the  common  opinion  until  the  i8th 
century  that  David  wrote  all  the  Psalms;  but  no  Biblical 
scholar  at  present,  so  far  as  I  know,  thinks  that  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  forces  him  to  hold  that  David  is 
the  author  of  the  entire  Psalter.  Why,  then,  should 
any  one  insist  that  when  the  name  Moses  is  given  to 
the  Pentateuch,  and  Isaiah  to  the  book  of  Isaiah,  that  it 
implies  that  Moses  and  Isaiah  wrote  all  those  writings 
attributed  to  them  by  tradition  ?  "    (pp.  127-128.) 

Progressive  Sanctificatioii  after  Death. 

I  shall  call  your  attention,  first,  to  a  passage  from  the 
Evidence  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  : 

"  But  justification  by  faith  belongs  to  the  earlier  stages 
of  redemption.  All  those  who  are  justified  are  also 
sanctified.  No  one  can  be  ultimately  and  altogether  re- 
deemed without  sanctification. 

"  It  is  necessary  that  believers  should  have  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  they  should  be 
*  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened  in  all  sav- 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH         295 

ing  graces  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,'  and  *  so  the  saints  grow  in 
grace,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God.*  The  doc- 
trine of  immediate  sanctification  is  a  heresy  which  has 
always  been  rejected  by  orthodox  Protestants. 

"The  Westminster  Confession  definitely  states  :  '  This 
sanctification  is  throughout,  yet  imperfect  in  this  life.' 
If  imperfect  in  this  life  for  all  believers,  there  is  no  other 
state  in  which  it  can  be  perfected  save  in  the  Inter- 
mediate State.  The  Intermediate  State  is  therefore  for 
all  believers  without  exception  a  state  for  their  sanctifi- 
cation. They  are  there  trained  in  the  school  of  Christ, 
and  are  prepared  for  the  Christian  perfection  which  they 
must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day. 

"  There  are  some  theologians  who  persuade  them- 
selves that  they  can  believe  in  the  immediate  justifica- 
tion and  the  immediate  sanctification  of  infants,  of  in- 
capables,  and  of  heathen  adults,  in  the  change  of  death, 
in  that  supreme  moment  of  transition  from  this  life  to 
the  Middle  State.  Such  a  theory  may  be  stated  in 
words,  but  it  is  inconceivable  in  fact.  What  a  transfor- 
mation would  take  place  in  the  intellectual  and  moral 
powers  of  infants,  incapables,  and  the  dark-minded 
heathen  !  Such  a  metamorphosis  is  not  taught  in  the 
Scriptures  or  the  Creeds.  It  would  violate  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  constitution  of  man. 

"Those  who  believe  it  may  claim  that  all  things  are 
possible  to  God.  But  it  might  be  said  that  it  is  just 
as  possible  for  God  to  use  the  water  of  Baptism,  ex 
opcre  operato,  to  work  regeneration,  as  Sacramentarians 
believe  ;  and  it  is  just  as  possible  that  the  elements  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  changed  into  the  real  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord,  as  the  Roman  Catholics  believe. 


296       ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

These  divine  transformations  are  just  as  possible  to  God 
and  just  as  credible  to  the  mind  of  man  as  the  immediate 
transformation  of  a  little  babe  into  a  perfectly  holy  man 
in  the  image  of  Jesus  Christ ;  or  of  the  instantaneous  ac- 
complishment of  the  entire  ordo  s/xhitis  for  an  idiot  in 
the  very  moment  of  death.  All  such  magical  doctrines 
are  subversive  of  the  entire  structure  of  Protestantism. 
They  belong  to  an  age  of  magic,  and  have  no  place  in 
an  age  of  Reason  and  Faith. 

"  It  was  a  keen  thrust  of  Mohler  that  Protestantism 
without  a  purgatory  must  either  let  men  enter  heaven 
stained  with  sin,  or  else  think  of  an  immediate  magical 
transformation  at  death,  by  which  sin  mechanically  and 
violently  falls  off  from  us  with  the  body.  Hase  justly 
replied  that  Protestantism  would  not  accept  this  dilemma, 
and  that  Protestant  Theology  taught  that  the  divine 
grace  was  operative,  and  men  capable  of  moral  develop- 
ment after  death.  This  view  is  the  established  opinion 
in  German  Theology.  Dorner,  Martensen,  Kahnis,  and 
other  divines  teach  that  there  must  be  a  growth  in  sanc- 
tification  in  the  Middle  State.  All  Protestants  must  ac- 
cept this  doctrine  or  they  are  sure  to  be  caught  in  the 
inconsistency  of  magical,  mechanical,  and  unethical  opin- 
ions. This  opinion  is  commonly  held  by  Protestants  in 
Great  Britain.  Why  should  Protestants  in  America  lag 
behind  their  brethren  in  Europe  ?  We  have  been  caught 
in  the  snares  of  recent  errors.  Let  us  break  through 
the  snares  and  re-establish  ourselves  in  the  ancient 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State. 

"  The  doctrine  of  immediate  justification  and  sanctifi- 
cation  at  death  involves  the  conceit  that  the  child  who 
dies  in  infancy  a  few  moments  after  birth  is  immediately 
justified  and  sanctified,  receives  saving  faith  and  all  the 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH  297 

Christian  graces  in  an  instant  ;  while  his  brother,  who 
Hves  in  this  world,  is  not  justified  until  he  reaches  the 
age  in  which  he  can  exercise  personal  faith,  and  then  he 
has  all  the  struggles  of  life  to  undergo  until  he  reaches 
the  limits  of  human  life  without  the  comforts  of  sancti- 
fication,  which  he  cannot  receive  until  death.  If  this 
were  so,  then  blessed  are  those  who  die  in  infancy,  and 
thus  outstrip  their  fellows  in  the  Christian  race.  Vastly 
better  to  be  born  to  die,  than  to  be  born  to  live  in  this 
uncertain  world.  What  parent  would  not  prefer  to  lay  all 
his  children  in  an  early  grave,  assured  of  their  salvation, 
rather  than  expose  them  to  the  dreadful  risks  of  life  and 
the  possibility  of  eternal  damnation?"  {Magazine  of 
Christian  Literature,  Dec,  1889.  Article,  Redemption 
after  Death,  pp.  11 2- 114.) 

Let  me  here  answer  a  question  which  has  been  sent  up 
to  me  :  "  Do  you  mean  by  '  Middle  State  '  a  condition  of 
being  between  earth  and  heaven,  or  a  condition  of  heav- 
enly life  between  the  death  of  the  believer  and  the  final 
judgment?" 

I  mean  the  latter. 

I  shall  add  the  following  from  my  Defence  before  the 
Presbytery : 

"  The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death 
raises  many  important  and  difficult  questions  with  regard 
to  the  Middle  State,  which  I  am  no  more  bound  to 
answer  than  are  others.  I  have  stated  my  views  so  far 
as  I  see  my  w^ay  and  no  farther.  I  see.  that  believers 
enter  the  Middle  State  imperfect,  but  they  are  cleansed 
by  the  blood  of  Christ  from  all  sin,  and  are  therefore  sin- 
less. They  are  justified  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  are 
therefore  guiltless  ;  they  are  by  the  immediate  influence 
of  the  divine  Spirit  raised  to  a  higher  and  nobler  life 
and  more  blessed  experience   of   redemption.     But   so 


298        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

soon  as  the  redeemed  soul  begins  its  active  practice, 
conduct,  and  service  in  the  Middle  State,  the  question 
presses  itself  upon  us  what  that  conduct,  practice,  and 
service  will  be.  Will  it  be  immediately  after  and  for- 
ever perfectly  holy,  or  will  there  still  remain  some  de- 
gree of  imperfection  in  their  practice  of  true  holiness  ? 
To  those  whose  ideas  of  holiness  are  low,  and  measured 
only  by  innocence,  holy  intention,  and  resolution,  or 
who  think  of  human  models  of  a  holy  life,  it  may  not 
seem  unnatural  that  believers  should  at  once  become 
alike  perfect  in  holiness  and  that  their  practice  of  true 
holiness  should  be  invariably  free  from  imperfections  of 
any  kind.  But  to  that  man  who  considers  how  weak 
and  imperfect  the  greatest  saints  and  martyrs  have  been 
when  they  left  this  world ;  how  far  from  perfection  the 
best  of  our  friends  have  been  when  they  left  us ;  and 
then  compare  them  with  the  sublime  ideals  of  perfect 
likeness  to  the  pure  and  holy  Jesus,  entire  likeness  to 
God  the  Father  in  perfect  conduct,  it  will  seem  incredi- 
ble that  the  man  who  leaves  this  world  so  imperfect 
should  in  a  moment  of  time  leap  to  this  perfection  of 
practice.  We  need  some  very  clear  and  express  teach- 
ing in  Holy  Scripture  to  justify  such  a  belief.  And  we 
have  it  not. 

"  It  is  to  be  feared  that  those  who  are  thinking  of  im- 
mediate sanctification  at  death  are  not  thinking  of  the 
sanctification  set  forth  in  Scripture  ;  but  of  a  merely 
negative  sanctification,  such  as  consists  in  the  absence  of 
positive  sin.  Sanctification  embraces  this  as  one  of  its 
elements  certainly,  but  Christian  sanctification  is  vastly 
more  than  this — it  is  the  positive  attainment  of  perfect 
practice.  It  is  not  only  the  non-commission  of  sin  ;  it 
is  not  only  the  doing  of  holy  deeds  under  favorable  cir- 
cumstances ;  it  is  not  merely  the  accumulation  of  holy 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION   AFTER  DEATH  299 

strength,  purpose,  resolution,  and  character  such  as 
make  it  easy  to  resist  sin  ;  but  it  is  vastly  more  than 
that — it  is  the  attainment  of  the  masterful  experience 
and  practice  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  that  the  saint  rises  supe- 
rior to  every  temptation  or  any  possibility  of  tempta- 
tion ;  and  attains  such  a  height  of  Christlikeness  and 
Godlikeness  that  it  will  be  absolutely  impossible  for  him 
to  commit  sin,  so  to  say,  as  impossible  as  for  Christ  to 
be  stained  with  guilt  or  for  God  to  commit  iniquity,  and 
in  which  the  entire  character,  conduct,  and  practice  are 
as  perfectly  holy  as  the  character  and  conduct  of  God, 
pure  as  Christ  is  pure,  perfect  as  God  is  perfect.  Does 
any  one  suppose  that  such  purity,  such  perfection,  can 
be  gained  in  the  moment  of  death  ?  Such  a  sanctifica- 
tion  is  the  goal  of  that  progressive  sanctification  that 
begins  with  regeneration  in  this  life  and  is  carried  on 
until  the  resurrection. and  the  judgment  day. 

"  The  doctrine  that  has  been  unfolded  removes  diffi- 
culties from  many  other  doctrines,  {a)  It  enables  us 
first  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation 
of  infants  and  incapables.  It  seems  most  probable  that 
the  God  of  all  grace  begins  their  redemption  in  this 
world  by  an  act  of  regeneration,  takes  it  up  when  they 
die  at  that  point,  and  carries  it  on  in  the  Middle  State 
through  all  the  subsequent  steps  of  sanctification. 

"  How  can  we  think  of  such  a  mechanical  act,  such  a 
magical  change,  as  the  transformation  of  a  new-born 
heathen  babe  into  the  perfect  likeness  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  very  moment  of  death  ?  No  passage  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture teaches  such  a  doctrine,  {b)  This  doctrine  of  pro- 
gressive sanctification  after  death  also  relieves  the  doc- 
trine of  the  salvation  of  some  of  the  heathen  and  of  the 
heathen  world.     We  can  now  see  that  those  who  have 


300        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING  THE  APPEAL 

been  enlightened  by  the  Logos  and  born  again  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  among  any  of  the  religions  of  the  world, 
having  the  root  of  the  matter  in  them,  the  vital  tie  of 
union  with  the  Deity,  enter  the  Middle  State,  where 
they  enjoy  all  the  training  they  need  for  their  progres- 
sive sanctification.  Israel  was  able  to  do  his  mediatorial 
work  for  the  nations  only  imperfectly  in  this  world.  It 
seems  probable  that  Israel  has  ever  carried  on  that 
mediatorial  work  as  the  religious  teacher  of  mankind, 
when  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  the  sages  and  the 
singers  received  the  pious  heathen  into  the  school  of 
holiness  that  lay  beyond  the  grave.  And  so  it  is  with 
the  ministry  of  the  Church.  The  Church  has  only  in 
part  carried  on  its  ministry  in  this  world.  Its  greatest 
ministry  has  ever  been  in  the  Middle  State,  in  training 
the  departed  babes  and  pious  heathen  in  the  holiness 
and  blessedness  of  the  heavenly  state.  As  our  Lord 
descended  into  Hades  to  preach  the  gospel  there,  so  the 
ancient  Church  conceived  the  apostles  and  teachers  as 
carrying  on  His  work.  There  is  an  apostolic  succession 
of  ministry  which  is  not  confined  to  this  earth,  but  em- 
braces in  its  redemptive  scope  the  realm  of  the  living 
and  the  dead,  as  Christ  is  the  king  and  judge  of  the  liv- 
ing and  the  dead,  and  His  Church  is  composed  of  the 
living  and  the  dead. 

"  I  believe  that  this  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctifica- 
tion after  death  is  of  great  practical  importance. 

"  {a)  It  fills  up  the  Middle  State  for  us  with  an  at- 
tractive, industrious,  holy  life,  a  progress  in  grace,  in 
knowledge,  in  holiness,  and  in  all  perfections.  We  realize 
that  our  departed  friends  are  not  asleep,  but  awake  in 
the  most  active  of  lives.  We  see  our  babes  growing  in 
the  divine  life.  We  see  our  beloved  in  the  companion- 
ship of  prophets  and  apostles,  of  saints  and  martyrs,  and 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION   AFTER  DEATH         ^Ql 

of  the  Holy  Jesus.  We  know  that  they  have  not  for- 
gotten us,  that  they  are  praying  for  us,  and  are  waiting 
to  welcome  us  into  the  world  of  the  redeemed.  Death 
loses  its  terrors — and  becomes  only  a  gateway  into  a 
better  country,  into  a  brighter  and  purer  life. 

"  {d)  It  incites  to  holy  endeavor.  The  doctrine  of  im- 
mediate sanctification  at  death  cuts  the  nerves  of  Chris- 
tian endeavor  and  dries  the  sap  of  holy  activity.  What 
is  the  use,  says  the  sluggish  soul,  in  my  striving  so  hard 
for  holiness,  when  I  shall  receive  it  all  in  an  instant 
whatever  my  life  has  been  ?  All  I  need  is  pardon,  to  get 
into  the  kingdom  at  the  eleventh  hour.  If  I  can  only 
crawl  through  just  at  the  moment  the  gate  of  death 
creaks  on  its  hinges,  I  shall  be  as  holy  and  as  blessed  as 
the  greatest  martyr  and  the  most  self-sacrificing  of  mis- 
sionaries. 

"  No  such  doctrine  was  known  to  the  martyr  age  of 
the  Church.  Those  who  hold  such  views  are  not  the 
stuff  martyrs  are  made  of.  There  would  have  been  no 
martyrs,  there  would  have  been  no  Church,  it  Christian- 
ity had  built  on  such  a  foundation.  Those  who,  with 
Paul  and  John,  keep  their  eyes  fixed  upon  the  perfec- 
tion of  God,  the  likeness  of  Christ,  and  make  it  their  one 
aim,  their  one  hope,  to  attain  that  perfection  and  like- 
ness at  the  resurrection  and  the  advent — those  will  purify 
themselves  in  this  world  that  they  may  enter  the  next 
world  with  as  great  an  advancement  as  possible.  For  if 
there  are  grades  of  service  and  advancement  here,  there 
will  be  still  greater  differences  of  grade  there  ;  and  the 
honors  of  heaven  will  be  apportioned  in  accordance  with 
the  self-sacrificing  ministry  of  earth.  The  holy  deeds 
done  in  the  body  are  the  sacred  necleus  of  the  holy 
practice  of  the  Middle  State. 

"  The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  is  in  ac- 


302        ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SUSTAINING   THE  APPEAL 

cordance  with  the  laws  that  God  has  established  in  the 
ethical  constitution  of  man.  The  conscience  speaks  the 
categorical  imperative  in  the  first  dawn  of  the  moral 
consciousness,  and  it  pronounces  its  decision  in  the  light 
of  the  training  that  men  receive  in  their  successive  stages 
of  advancement  in  morals. 

"  The  Church  and  the  Bible  give  their  potent  aid  to 
the  conscience  in  the  ethical  elevation  of  humanity.  It 
is  always,  everywhere,  and  in  every  variety  of  form  and 
education,  a  training.  Shall  all  this  ethical  training 
cease  at  death,  all  the  varied  stages  of  progress  in  the 
different  periods  of  life,  of  culture,  of  racial  and  national 
advancement,  be  reduced  to  a  common  level  and  made 
of  none  effect,  by  a  mighty  transformation  that  will  deal 
with  the  race,  father  and  child,  mother  and  babe,  master 
and  scholar,  self-sacrificing  missionary  and  pagan  con- 
vert, the  devoted  evangelist  and  the  thief  and  murderer 
turning  in  his  last  hour  to  Christ  from  the  shadow  of 
the  gallows — alias  one  undistinguishable  mass?  Such 
a  doctrine  strikes  a  deadly  blow  at  the  moral  nature  of 
man,  the.  ethical  constitution  of  society,  the  .historic 
training  of  our  race,  and  the  moral  government  of  God. 

"The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctificatior\  after  death 
harmonizes  Christian  faith  with  Christian  ethics,  and 
both  of  these  with  the  ethics  of  humanity  and  the  ethics 
of  God.  It  enables  us  to  comprehend  the  whole  life  of 
man,  the  whole  history  of  our  race  from  its  first  creation 
until  the  day  of  doom,  and  all  the  acts  of  God  in  crea- 
tion and  providence,  under  one  grand  conception,  the 
divine  sanctification  of  man."     (pp.  1 77-181.) 

Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  I  have  endeavored  to  set 
forth  before  you,  as  clearly  and  as  thoroughly  as  I  could, 
what  are  my  views  on  the  subjects  in  dispute.     I  hold 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH         303 

these  views  sincerely  and  with  all  my  heart.  I  maintain 
that  they  are  the  views  that  are  set  forth  in  Holy 
Scripture.  The  larger  portion  of  them  are  set  forth 
also  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and,  as  I 
know  from  a  study  of  the  Westminster  divines  for  many 
years,  would  be  regarded  by  them  as  very  important 
matters  of  the  Puritan  faith  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
There  are  other  matters  in  dispute  which  have  arisen  in 
the  public  mind  since  the  times  of  the  Westminster  as- 
sembly, and  have  received  no  definition  in  our  stand- 
ards. Now  you  must  judge  upon  these  matters  as 
judges  in  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  before  the 
living  God,  and  under  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  challenge  you,  before  God,  that  you  judge  righteous 
judgment.  I  challenge  you,  before  God,  that  you  judge 
me  according  to  the  record  of  the  declarations  that  I 
have  made.  I  challenge  you,  before  Jesus  Christ,  that 
you  do  no  wrong  to  the  Church  of  the  living  God. 


V. 

THE  SUSTAINING  OF  THE  APPEAL,  AND  THE  JUDGMENT 
OF  THE   GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

All  of  the  34  specifications  under  the  five  grounds 
of  Appeal  were  carried  by  a  viva  voce  vote  except  IV. 
I  and  5,  which  charged  prejudice  against  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  which  were  lost. 
IV.  6,  which  charged  prejudice  against  directors,  ofifi- 
cers,  and  professors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
was  carried  by  a  majority  of  two  votes — 236  to  234. 
There  was  a  count  of  votes  on  several  other  specifica- 
tions as  follows  : 

I.  I,  282  to  190;  I.  2,  282  to  177. 

I.  4,  238  to  195  ;  I.  6,  250  to  185. 

II.  r,  262  to  185. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Assembly  voted  with  little  dis- 
crimination and  in  the  determination  to  sustain  the 
Appeal  at  every  cost  to  truth  and  right,  and  without 
regard  to  the  unfortunate  precedents  which  might  be 
established  by  their  votes.  Some  of  the  leaders  endeav- 
ored to  discriminate,  but  they  could  not  restrain  their 
followers  in  the  final  rush  of  the  vote. 

The  vote  was  then  taken   on  the  Sustaining  of  the 
Appeal,  when  298  voted  to  sustain,  85  to  sustain  in  part, 
and  116  not  to  sustain. 
(304) 


THE  JUDGMENT  3O5 

A  committee  of  fifteen  was  appointed  to  bring  in  an 
explanatory  minute,  as  follows  : 

Ministers:  Thomas  A.  Hoyt,  D.D.,  H.  W.  Congdon, 
James  H.  Brooks,  D.D.,  Calvin  W.  Stewart,  D.D.,  W. 
W.  Harsha,  D.D.,  Jame?  J.  Lucas,  George  D.  Baker, 
D.D.,  E.  P.  Whallon,  D.D.,  and  Thomas  D.  Ewing, 
D.D. 

Elders :  John  Randolph,  Thomas  McDougall,  David 
Jacks,  E.  T.  Green,  James  A.  Curry,  and  E.  D.  War- 
field. 

This  committee  reported  June  1st. 

The  Judgment  upon  Dr.  Briggs. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hoyt:  Mr.  Moderator,  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  formulate  the  judgment  of  the  Assembly  is 
now  ready  to  report.  Before  that  report  is  presented, 
however,  I  wish  to  ask  Dr.  Baker  (a  member  of  a  sub- 
committee sent  by  this  committee  to  interview  Dr. 
Briggs),  to  relate  the  result  of  that  interview,  which  was 
undertaken  by  the  committee  in  a  kind  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation. 

Dr.  Baker  :  Mr.  Moderator,  when  your  committee 
convened  this  morning  under  your  direction,  it  was  im- 
pressed with  a  sense  of  responsibility  which  seldom  falls 
to  the  lot  of  men  to  bear.  We  felt  that  the  very  first 
thing  to  do  in  all  Christian  courtesy  and  love  was  to  send 
a  committee  to  Dr.  Briggs  and  give  him  an  opportunity 
to  say  whatever  he  might  be  pleased  to  say  in  view  of 
the  distressing  circumstances.  There  was  a  prayer  in 
our  hearts  that  Dr.  Briggs  might  be  led  of  God  to  say 
something  which  would  relieve  the  painful  situation.  I 
regret  to  say,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  our  hope  in  this 
regard   was    disappointed.     Our    interview   was    frank, 


306  THE  JUDGMENT 

kind,  and  cordial  to  the  last  degree ;  but  Dr.  Briggs 
insisted  strenuously,  positively,  irrevocably,  upon  every- 
thing that  he  had  said  in  the  defence  which  he  made 
when  brought  to  the  bar  of  this  court.  At  my  request 
he  gave  into  my  hands  this  statement  in  his  own  hand- 
writing, and  bearing  his  own  signature,  which  I  will 
read : 

"  In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  hereby  state  that 
your  committee  called  upon  me  to  ask  me  if  I  had  any- 
thing to  say  to  them  respecting  the  disposition  of  the 
case.  I  thereupon  said  that  I  adhered  to  all  the  posi- 
tions taken  before  the  General  Assembly,  and  had 
nothing  further  to  say ;  save  that  the  appellee  reserves 
all  rights,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  should  take 
the  exclusive  responsibility  for  any  further  action." 

When  I  interrogated  him  particularly  with  reference 
to  the  declaration  he  made  to  this  court  that  he  should 
continue  under  all  circumstances  to  teach,  so  long  as  he 
lived,  the  doctrines  to  answer  for  which  he  was  brought 
to  the  bar  of  this  court,  he  replied  that  he  had  only  to 
reiterate  that  declaration  ;  that  whatsoever  might  be  the 
disposition  of  this  case,  whatsoever  action  we  might 
take  this  afternoon  with  reference  to  it,  he  should  still 
teach,  as  he  has  done  heretofore,  these  doctrines,  which 
he  sincerely  believes.  It  was  in  view  of  this  declaration, 
Mr.  Moderator,  that  your  committee  took  the  action 
which  is  now  to  be  reported  by  the  chairman. 

Dr.  HOYT  :  With  your  permission,  Mr.  Moderator,  I 
will  now  read  the  judgment  which  it  is  recommended 
by  your  committee  be  taken  by  this  Assembly  in  that 
case  : 


THE  JUDGMENT  307 

General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  session  at  Washington,  D. 
C,  June  I,  1893. 


Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 
Appellant, 


vs. 


Rev,  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 

Appellee. 


On  Appeal  from  the 
final  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  of 
New  York. 


This  appeal  being  regularly  issued  and  coming  on  to 
be  heard  on  the  judgment,  the  notice  of  appeal,  the 
appeal,  and  the  specifications  of  errors  alleged,  and  the 
record  in  the  case  from  the  beginning,  and  the  reading 
of  said  record  having  been  omitted  by  consent,  and  the 
parties  hereto  having  been  heard  before  the  judicatory 
in  argument,  and  the  opportunity  having  been  given  to 
the  members  of  the  judicatory  appealed  from  to  be 
heard,  and  they  having  been  heard,  and  opportunity 
having  been  given  to  the  members  of  this  judicatory  to 
be  heard,  and  they  having  been  heard,  as  provided  by  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  General  Assembly  as  a  judi- 
catory sitting  in  said  cause  on  appeal  having  sustained 
the  following  specifications  of  error,  to  wit : 

All  of  said  specifications  of  errors  set  forth  in  said  five 
grounds  of  appeal,  save  and  except  the  first  and  fifth 
under  the  fourth  ground  of  appeal,  on  consideration 
whereof  this  judicatory  finds  said  appeal  should  be  and 
is  hereby  sustained,  and  that  said  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  the  judicatory  appealed  from,  erred  in  striking 
out  said  amended  charges  four  and  seven,  and  erred  in 
not  sustaining  on  the  law  and  the  evidence  said  amended 
charges  one,  two,  three,  five,  six  and  eight ;  on  consider- 


308  THE  JUDGMENT 

ation  whereof  this  judicatory  finds  that  said  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  is  erroneous  and 
should  be  and  is  hereby  reversed  ;  and  this  General  As- 
sembly sitting  as  a  judicatory  in  said  cause  coming  now 
to  enter  judgment  on  said  amended  charges,  one,  two, 
three,  five,  six  and  eight,  finds  the  appellee,  the  said 
Chas.  A.  Briggs,  has  uttered,  taught  and  propagated 
views,  doctrines  and  teachings  as  set  forth  in  said 
charges  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  said  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  violation  of  the 
ordination  vow  of  said  appellee,  which  said  erroneous 
teachings,  views  and  doctrines  strike  at  the  vitals  of 
religion  and  have  been  industriously  spread  ;  wherefore, 
this  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  sitting  as  a  judicatory  in 
this  cause  on  appeal  does  hereby  suspend  Chas.  A. 
Briggs,  the  said  appellee,  from  the  ofifice  of  a  minister 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  until  such  time  as  he  shall  give  satisfactory 
evidence  of  repentance  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
for  the  violation  by  him  of  the  said  ordination  vow  as 
herein  and  heretofore  found. 

And  it  is  ordered  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of  this  Gen-, 
eral  Assembly  transmit  a  certified  copy  of  this  judg- 
ment to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  be  made  a  part 
of  the  record  in  this  case. 

It  was  also  ordered  that  a  copy  be  furnished  to  the 
appellee,  the  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

Doctrinal  Statements. 

Rev.  Dr.  HOVT:  Mr.  Moderator,  in  addition  to  this 
report  of  judgment,  there  were  also  formulated  by  us 


THE  STATEMENT  309 

in  obedience  to  your  commands,  doctrinal  statements 
bearing  upon  the  issues  which  have  been  pending  here, 
and  with  your  permission  I  will  ask  that  Rev.  Dr.  Harsha, 
the  chairman  of  the  sub-committee,  read  that  paper. 

Rev.  Dr.  Harsha  :  The  report,  Mr.  Moderator,  of 
this  sub-committee,  is  a  very  brief  one.  We  did  not 
deem  it  advisable  to  go  into  large  details  on  the  doc- 
trinal points  raised  in  this  appeal. 

"Your  committee,  to  whom  was  intrusted  the  duty  of 
formulating  a  deliverance  of  this  Assembly  on  the  doc- 
trinal points  involved  in  the  appeal  of  the  committee  of 
prosecution  from  the  decision  of  the  presbytery  of  New 
York  in  the  case  of  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  reports  as 
follows : 

"  First.  We  find  that  the  doctrine  of  the  errancy  of 
Scripture  as  it  came  from  them  to  whom  and  through 
whom  God  originally  communicated  his  revelation,  is  in 
conflict  with  the  statements  of  the  Holy  Scripture  itself, 
which  asserts  that  all  Scripture  or  every  Scripture  is 
given  by  the  inspiration  of  God  (H.  Timothy  iii.  16); 
that  the  prophecy  came  not  of  old  by  the  will  of  man, 
but  that  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  (H.  Peter  i.  21);  and  also  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  standards  of  the  Church  which  assert  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
the  Word  of  God  (Larger  Catechism,  question  3),  of 
infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  (Confession,  chapter 
I.,  section  5). 

"  Second.  We  find  in  this  case  involved  the  question  of 
the  sufficiency  of  the  human  reason  and  of  the  Church, 
as  authorized  guides  in  the  matter  of  salvation.  Your 
committee  recommends  that  this  General  Assembly  de- 
clare that  the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  fountains  of  divine  authority ;  that  they  are 


310  THE  PROTEST 

unrelia.ble  and  variable,  and  whilst  they  may  be  and  no 
doubt  are  channels  or  media  through  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  may  reach  and  influence  for  good  the  human  soul, 
they  are  not  to  be  relied  upon  as  sufficient  in  themselves 
and  aside  from  Holy  Scripture,  to  lead  the  soul  to  a 
saving  knowledge  of  God.  To  teach  otherwise  is  most 
dangerous,  and  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  and  our 
Standards,  and  our  ministers  and  churches  are  solemnly 
warned  against  them. 

"  TJiird.  We  find  involved  in  this  case  a  speculation  in 
regard  to  the  process  of  the  soul's  sanctification  after 
death  which  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly  is  a 
dangerous  hypothesis,  in  direct  conflict  with  the  plain 
teachings  of  the  Divine  Word  and  the  utterances  of  the 
standards  of  our  church.  Those  standards  distinctly 
declare  that  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death 
made  perfect  in  righteousness  and  do  immediately  pass 
into  glory,  whilst  their  bodies,  being  still  united  to 
Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection. 
(Shorter  Catechism,  question  37 ;  H.  Corinthians  v.  3 ; 
Philippians  i.  23,  and  John  xvii.  24.)" 

The  Protest. 

The  following  is  the  Protest  presented  by  Dr.  Sprague, 
of  Auburn,  in  regard  to  the  sentence  against  Dr.  Briggs : 

"■  We,  the  undersigned,  ministers  and  elders  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
declaring  our  hearty  belief  in,  and  love  for,  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  and  our 
entire  loyalty  to  the  principles  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  desire  respectfully  to  record  our  solemn  protest 
against  the  verdict  of  suspension,  and  the  proceedings 
leading  to  the  verdict,  in  the  case  against  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in  the  General  Assembly  of  1893. 


THE   PROTEST  311 

^^  First.  As  involving,  in  our  judgment,  acts  of  doubt- 
ful constitutionality. 

"  Second.  As  seeming  to  abridge  the  liberty  of  opinion 
hitherto  enjoyed  under  our  standards  by  office-bearers 
in  the  Church. 

"  Third.  As  tending,  we  believe,  to  the  discouragement 
of  the  thorough  study  of  the  Bible  and  reverent  ad- 
vance in  apprehension  of  divine  truth  ;  and 

''Fourth.  As  inflicting  what  we  cannot  but  feel  is  an 
injustice  on  a  Christian  scholar  of  acknowledged  high 
character  and  learning,  as  well  as  on  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  which  has  fully  acquitted  him  of  the  charges 
alleged  against  him." 

This  Protest  was  signed  by  sixty-three  ministers  and 
elders,  commissioners  of  the  General  Assembly,  who 
voted  in  the  minority. 


/ 


>l 


Date  Due 


u/ 


^KtS^HtHl^SiSSbl 


